Talk:Harmony

Tone

I find the tone (no pun intended) to be a bit colloquial at times. It also uses the second-person. It seems very unprofessional. 68.99.151.209 09:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)MT[reply]

Dinergic

The article included the following:

It [harmony] is a dinergic relationship, which is the fitting and joining of often contrasting elements. It is the fundamental basis of the Golden Mean.

I think mentioning dinergy here, which is a rather obscure concept, gives it too much prominence (besides which, the article on dinergy says it is "the pattern-forming process of the union of opposites", which isn't what harmony is, it seems to me). The Golden Mean sentence seems meaningless to me. The golden mean is a middle path; I don't see as this has anything to do with harmony. (There's also the mathematical meaning of course, which also has nothing to do with conventional harmony, though it's true a small number of people have written music using a tuning system based on the golden ratio.) --Camembert

It's just struck me that the author may have been thinking not about musical harmony, but about harmony as a general concept. If so, maybe the above makes sense, but it really doesn't belong in this article, which is explicitly just about the musical kind of harmony. Where it might belong instead, I don't really know, but it should be linked from Harmony (disambiguation), I guess. --Camembert

Harmony is also in nature and humans copied that into architecture and pottery. WHEELER 15:43, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you didn't mean harmony in music, then? If so, that's OK, as I said, there's probably a place for what you wrote on the Wikipedia somewhere. But this page is explicitly about harmony in music, and I think it's better to keep it that way - things could get quite confusing and confused if we mix the various concepts of harmony together. Like I say, maybe it could be worked into Harmony (disambiguation) or given its own page. --Camembert

Consonance and dissonance

The following sentence:

Notes may be considered to be in harmony with each other when some of the harmonics of each note, especially the louder harmonics (which are often the lower ones), share the same frequency.

confuses harmony with consonance. While this is in line with non-musical uses of the term (as opposed to disharmony), in music dissonances are considered harmony as well. Wahoofive 22:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How does it look now? Hyacinth 22:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Much better. Wahoofive 06:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Church

The influence of churches on harmonic language is overstated. Developments in harmony were due to the taste of individual composers and listeners (and patrons); although some of them were church members or clergy, there was no consistent policy on harmony from either Catholic or Protestant churches. Other aspects of music were regulated, such as instrumental accompaniment, but I'm not aware than any churches banned diminished-seventh chords or augmented sixths or whatever as a matter of church policy. Wahoofive 22:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a general example of churches controlling music Gregorian chant mentions "edicts of Rome...attempting to establish a consistent practice during this period" [400-800 CE]. Hyacinth 22:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Churches have often controlled music, but not specifically harmony, AFAIK. Wahoofive 06:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps you could remove it to talk as in the proposed policy Wikipedia:Confirm queried sources. Hyacinth 16:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Centrifugal/centripetal

Harmony may also be distinguished as centrifugal or centripetal harmony, harmony which leads away from or to the tonic, respectively. For example, music of the classical era is most often centrifugal, while the ragtime progression is centripetal. (van der Merwe 1989)

I've never heard of this, which may not be relevant, but the examples are nonsensical. For one thing, the "ragtime progression" page states it derives from classical usage. Anyway, in what universe does harmony in classical music lead away from the tonic? Ever heard of a cadence? —Wahoofive (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess youll have to look up the reference before dismissing it!--Light current 01:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a Google test? 36 results, none about music. That's for "centripedal". Centrifugal has only 4 results. I vote that the reference is a hoax, or at least the terms are not widely enough used to be included. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the book ref? Are you going to let it go?--Light current 06:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's break this down:

CONTRIBUTOR: This section was added by a contributor who has a long history of adding made up material to Wikipedia and refusing to work with others, especially Wahoofive. See: User:Hyacinth and #Consonance and dissonance
REFERENCE:The reference added is not a real book. See http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0193161214/102-4638459-8408159?n=283155
CONTENT: The actual content of the section, considered apart from the above, doesn't make sense. Why would one want to discuss where a chord progression is going? See: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Progress

One can only and quickly conclude that it is "hoax". (Please note that I'm being facetious) Hyacinth 09:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "most" to "more" as I believe that was what van der Merwe meant (and it would seem that classical era music would be centrifugal only half the time). Hyacinth 09:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like the Arabian comma mess all over again. Just because it's in a book doesn't make it true. Some books are ~~full of shit~~ fringe theories, and an important page like this one shouldn't give it prominence as if it were on the same level of general acceptance as Rameau or Riemann, neither of whom ~~are~~ is mentioned here. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to note the conflict which contributed to your tone in this discussion.

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Hyacinth 09:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes well, this is under review at the moment. Watch that space!--Light current 23:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can play rule-citing games too: see WP:NPOV#Undue weight, where it says

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

My Google test was intended to show that this view is extremely minority. This article presently gives a whole section to some crank neologisms while not even mentioning the mainstream view at all. You have the strangest library, Hyacinth. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find mention of Rameau and Riemann on Tonality, some of which was added by me. Hyacinth 11:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove this passage for the reason that, as the difference between "centrifugal" and "centripetal" harmonies are not defined. The passage states:

Harmony may also be distinguished as centrifugal or centripetal harmony, harmony which leads away from or to the tonic, respectively. For example, music of the classical era is more often centrifugal, while the ragtime progression is centripetal.

It fails to explain what harmony that "leads toward a tonic" or away from it is. It's somewhat unreasonable to be making a statement like "classical music more often leads away from the tonic", because this is untrue. Even the example of a ragtime progression is a particularly common progression in classical music. There may be some distinction to be made, but there isn't even a hint of it in this article. Hyacinth, can you offer a passage from the book you have taken this material from? Does the book use it throughout, or do the words only appear once in reference to ragtime music? - Rainwarrior 17:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Single melodic line?

the line about harmony being possible in a single harmonic line could really use some clarification. I think it is by definition impossible for a single melodic line to hit harmonies. If multiple notes are being sounded together, its no longer a single melodic line. The only thing I can think is that the "harmony" could be implied, for example by playing the root note of the implied chord on the downbeat and then playing as if within that chord, but I don't think that should really count, and if that is what is being described it certainly needs clarification. I guess the other possibility is that the sentence refers to the harmonics present in the notes of the melody, but that certainly shouldn't be mentioned as harmony as it more or less renders the term meaningless. Thoughts? Powrtoch 21:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised it slightly and left an example of what it was trying to describe. Also, there is a Canadian composer who has made considerable use of this technique... but I can't remember his name offhand. I'll try and remember... - Rainwarrior 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. José Evangelista. "José Evangelista pursues an artistic path by which he has explored ways of making a music based exclusively on melody. Hence he has developed a heterophonic writing, both for instruments and orchestra, in which the melodic line generates echoes of itself and creates an illusion of polyphony." [1] - Rainwarrior 19:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chord (music) and Harmony

I propose that we develop some sort of standard or guideline as to what information goes on the Chord (music) and Harmony articles.

To that end I will start discussion on this talk page. It seems like the history section of Chord (music) may actually belong at Harmony, so the first change I propose is that it (Chord (music)#History) be moved to or discussed more fully on Harmony. Hyacinth 00:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rainwarrior edits are in pursuit of a petty personal vendetta

The Rainwarrior edits are aimed at his continued months-long stalking of Bob Fink, not the interest of the article. The Rainwarrior-censored citations have been restoreed. The edits include info on ancient harmony, 3rd-party-published by Archaeologia Musicalis journal, Feb., 1988. Fink, not yet 3,000 years old, did not author the vase and wall art from ancient Egypt and Greece in the citation. But even if he did draw that ancient art, Rainwarrior does not recognize nor honour wikipedia guidelines (because they don't serve his corrupt stalking campaign) such as:

1. "You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest." (For Rainwarrior's obsessive targeting of Fink, perhaps even ONE citation would be "excessive." Greenwyk 07:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You added about a hundred links to your website to wikipedia. I think that classifies as linkspam. You should read the external linking guidelines (WP:EL) which say:

"You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it."

Post the link here on the talk page, and if someone else thinks it's relevant they can add it. - Rainwarrior 08:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100 links? Or 100 edits? Which? If links, add the URLs or names of the articles of where they are to prove your claim. 100 links seems exaggerated to me. Greenwyk 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tom harrison/external links counts 136 links to your website from Wikipedia. Putting greenwych.ca into the search box will find them for you. The edit histories show when the link was added and by what IP address, and the total contributions of each of these IP addresses may be checked. Almost all of them were added by the 65.255.255.* IP addresses you use, and their contribution histories consistently edit the same material at the same pages.

Now, you've added your articles as "further reading", but why? There are thousands of books and articles on harmony and on its history. What's so special about yours? Should we have every author who has written on harmony cite their article here? - Rainwarrior 17:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rainwarrior continues vendetta: vandalizes relevant citations

There is no justified reason to remove legitimate secondary citations, no matter who places them. They show the discovery of two recent items of evidence for ancient harmony. Citations cannot be removed for reasons of personal hostility to a single person. There must be a specific reason given relating to the good of the subject of the article, not based on the subject of Rainwarrior's sick, tortured, irrational hatred of Bob Fink's research, with no reasoned, cited justifications given for it. That censorship vandalism will be reverted until the end of time. 65.255.225.52 01:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The action described above is known as edit warring, which can result in a user being blocked from editing. Wikipedia has a guideline of consensus. I suggest that the anonymous present his or her case for the inclusion of these links. I further recommend that the user consult Wikipedia's code of conduct policy. The statement made above is clearly inappropriate. Victoriagirl 05:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Victoriagirl: I'm sorry, but I must disagree. I have been under attack from Rainwarrior for months. He exhibits all the facets described in Wikipedia of a troll, a disrupter, and a harasser, but he also does it as a "creative troll," as Wikipedia puts it -- in this case being offensive in a mild-mannered way designed to provoke me or others to blow their top. People can take only so much insult and hassle.

You can see the evidence for all this at Talk:Musical_acoustics. In that Talk (quite long), Rainwarrior has been accused (not by me only) of being offensive toward me. I'm only human. I will not tolerate lies, distortions, misrepresentations about myself, my motives, without serious specific evidence being presented. Search the thousands of words, and you'll see Rainwarrior's evidence of anything against me is ONLY his own suspicions, but he never cites anything real, hard or true. On the other hand, when evidence is presented that contradicts his suspicions, he ignores it, refuses to address it, and moves on to other accusations or subjects. INDEED he himself has proposed in the various Talk pages that my citations should be secondary sources, not links to my own webpages. Fine. I provided these in the "Further Reading" here. But now, even that isn't good enough.

Wikipedia mades provisions for secondary sources to be provided by authors, even if they have a played a role in the article's findings. Wikipedia reports that material can be cited, and the author can edit "in the Third Person" -- of course with care. Rainwarrior observes none of these guidelines or policies regarding me. Only the ones that suit his attack.

There is ample evidence of provocation and bad faith on his part -- IF you read the whole of his manner of operating at Musical acoustics. There are two sides to every story. You will also see that Rainwarrior is always far more interested in me than in the article. If an edit I made over the year or so has stood unchallenged, Wiki/Consensus says: "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus -- somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process." (BTW, that "silence" thing is a point of view that Rainwarrior has already said, when it was convenient to him, is "ludicrous" at Talk:Divje_Babe).

But when you're faced with a person whose apparent goal is clearly to track down every edit, word and link I have placed, there can never be consensus, because there can never be that "silence" from Rainwarror to allow a consensus. In plain English, "he is out to get me." He refuses to reply to any offer (made twice) to negotiate, nor to find a common ground in good faith that represents even part of -- as Wiki puts it --"the interests of both parties." CATCH 22! I have no choice but to revert the vandalism -- which, if vandalism, is not subject to the "3-revert rule." So let's go to a mediator or arbitrator and let's find out if it's vandalism. Ask Rainwarrior if he'll go to mediation. Or arbitration?-- I will.

Wikipedia has pointed out that authors may edit material about themselves in a small way -- and can also revert vandalism. Since the Rainwarrior edits are targeting me almost wholly, and invariably vandalize what little editing Wikipedia allows a scholar involved in the contents of the article itself to still edit (that is, if one of the duly published scholars in a discussion on a particular subject in an article also edits). But Rainwarrior never recognizes anything in the guidelines that favours me even existing at all as an minor editor in musicology pages. Most such edits were made earlier through 2006 by my publisher and a few others. They didn't know the rules, but we have offered to replace any links that break the rules with other links publishing our research that do not break the rules. Ask Rainwarrior why he seems to not accept that.

Rainwarrior has falsely also said my views are not notable, but a look in the references in my bio page, for which you did the "cleanup" will show that is indeed false. You don't get invited to write an article for a world conference on music archaeology by the conference organizers and editors if not notable; Or published in other peer-reviewed journals, or receive scores or hundreds of good reviews of your work (along with published dissent too, replying against your ideas) from other notable people in the field -- if you're not notable as well. Or get invited by Nature journal, the leading science journal in the world, to be a juror regarding ancient music -- if you're not notable. There is no reason to remove the secondary links.

Regarding the "case" you asked for, to show why the links should be there, I already made that case above for those secondary sources. But I'll repeat it here. Since those links Rainwarrior removed are not to webpages I own, nor are they an "External link" -- I don't have to beg "permission" to enter them in an edit. But here's the case anyway: The "Evidence link" reports the famous work, in the Archaeology/Assyrian field, of Professor Anne D. Kilmer deciphering the stone tablet, 4000 years old, as markings that describe the music and words to the oldest known song. And the song was in harmony. Visit the link to see, if you wish. In that link, my own discovery -- found in ancient artworks depicting musicians -- was to note that this art has strong clues that harmony existed at the time the art was made. These discoveries were also supported by Kilmer in one of her articles in her Assyriology research. (She was head of the Assyriology Dept at University of California at Berkeley before retiring.)

She visited me in Canada for a week, to compare notes. She favourable reviewed my book The Origin of Music. If you want a reference on my "worth" -- of which Rainwarrior will admit there is none -- I'll give you Kilmer's phone number, and you can phone her -- or e-mail her. Whatever you wish. I am the victim of a scurrilous injustice and waste of time from Rainwarrior's behavior, and I can prove it to anyone who will act on my evidence of that.

So on all these grounds, I will revert the edit because it is vandalism. My lack of civility was because I'm trying to share my life's work and research, and being harassed and disrupted in that. So I'm ready to go to a mediator, or and arbitration over this. If Wikipedia wants to allow trolls to chase away scholars and knoweldgeable people who may be able to make articles better, then let's find out where they will draw the line: On his or my side.

As to Rainwarrior's edit being because I'm engaged in self-promotion? Why are those secondary links different from any other scholar who cites secondary sources of his/her work? They are allowed to do it by the guidelines. What POV is there? -- Only that the source is a publication of Bob Fink's discoveries and research on harmony? Is being Bob Fink wrong in itself? -- Just "advertising myself"? How on earth can it be? Just because Rainwarrior asserts it? If so then every such author is "advertising"!

At age 71, Most of my books are sold out. 30 or so left. I have already made arrangements to give up my copyrights into the public domain because of my age. I don't have much "future" left. So, what point is there for self-promotion? To get a better job? I'm retired. I can barely walk. -- I have been doing musicological research for a half-century on the origins of music. As said, I've written several books, been published in peer-reviewed journals and books and other secondary literature; and so on. My books are in hundreds of libraries. (I can name their on-line catalogue listings.) See also the "notability" section in Talk:Musical_acoustics.

But it was in vain. Rainwarrior has been advised of the facts of that publishing record many times, and knows that they are true. And I can prove them. So: The idea (or that of my publisher or supporters of my views) that our sincere desire to share the findings of my published research and knowledge with others (through relevant musicology pages in Wikipedia), represents only mercenary "POV pushing," or "Spam" is absurd & pointless -- I can only interpret it as a desire of Rainwarrior's to pursue only the censorship of that research. He can find only those rules that seem to serve that end.

I will e-mail you Prof. Kilmer's phone number. If you provide an e-mail address. Or Professor Bonnie Blackwell (who radiocarbon-dated the age of the Neanderthal "flute"). You also can read what they say about my work at the external links on the Bob_Fink page. All you have to do is visit those links, and decide for yourself, after reading them as well as the accuations and bad faith Rainwarrior showed me Talk:Musical_acoutics -- if you're interested -- and decide for yourself. Anyway I'm not tolerating it anymore. I'm not a punching bag. It's an uncalled for campaign of personal attack, very pretend-"civil" but abusive to me nonetheless. -- Best wishes, Bob Fink, at 65.255.225.36 08:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may disagree with them, but the edits in question [2] [3] cannot in any way be considered vandalism. Simply put, nothing resembling them is described in the rather long list of examples provided in Wikipedia's official policy on the matter. In fact, your accusation that Rainwarrior has been harrassing clearly falls under what vandalism is not. You'll note that the very same section provides a link to the dispute resolution pages. The fact remains that there is obviously no consensus as to whether the references in question should be included. In fact, there has been no response to the call for comment made by Rainwarrior in removing these articles. I suggest that the question be reworded and included for discussion on this page. Silence is, quite obviously, not the only sign of consensus. I don't for a moment agree that consensus cannot be reached because one or two people are particularly vocal - this has not been my experience. Nor can I accept the behaviour of one member as an excuse for the lack of civility displayed by another, particularly when it runs counter to the code of conduct policy. Victoriagirl 17:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly says in the "types of vandalism" you cited, right in the top paragraph: "Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary." Assertions of self-promotion are not "valid." That assertion is false. There is no evidence given. Unless you believe that ANY author who posts a link to a publication of his/her research relevant to the article is always to be considered "self-promoting"? Do you believe that? Look at the link and see. After all, Wiki goes on to say that "removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself." (Added italics.) What, in the readily apparent content, "promotes me?" That a peer-reviewed journal published my research (and Kilmer's) on harmony (which is the title of this wiki article)? Where in Wikipedia does only an authorship by-line of published content alone constitute self-promotion? Bob F. 65.255.225.38 03:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In dismissing my concerns you quote the Wikipedia policy on vandalism, to which I referred: "Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary." With all due respect, Rainwarrior has twice provided [4][5] edit summaries indicating the reasoning behind the removal of the links in question. I consider these concerns valid. While I don't for a moment believe that a user who posts a reference to his or her own research is necessarily committing an act of self-promotion, I most certainly recognize a very real possibility. To cite oneself, to add one's name to an article as the author of two of nine articles considered to be "Further reading", is a rather bold act. There is nothing wrong with this - after all, Wikipedia encourages bold editing, but one must expect to be challenged. Again, I encourage you to seek consensus on this issue. Victoriagirl 04:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to add external links

(Okay -- will ask again. Moved down again, and updated): 2 titles (as published by secondary sources) in "Further Reading" could be usefully accessed on-line, at the webpages mentioned below. These would be:

On-line essay: Evidence of Harmony in Ancient Music, --publ by Archaeologia Musicalis journal, Feb., 1988 by the "Study Group on Music Archaeology" of the Int'l Council on Traditional Music). Publ: Moeck Verlag, Celle, Geermany. Study of oldest known song
Role of the drone in the evolution of counterpoint & harmony published in Onlook, Summer, 2002, Four Winds Centre, Farnham, Surrey. UK, p. 21-22.

Those publisheres have no on-line versions of those articles. But as I own the online website which reproduces those articles, in order to avoid COI, even though the content was published in 2nd or 3rd-party journals, I ask someone else to add the online content to "external links" as well.

Reasons to add: The "Evidence" link reports the Kilmer evidence in the "oldest known song" (+midi of that song version) and reports research finding new evidence of ancient harmony, from observing clues found in ancient art (wall art, vases, etc) showing musicians playing harps. This evidence is well-known and widely accepted in the music archaeology field, but far less known among those in the musicology fields. --Bob F. 65.255.225.37 10:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These topics may be tangentially related to "harmony", but I don't think they're relevant enough for "further reading" here. Even if the topics are relevant enough, there are plenty of other (less obscure) articles by other authors about these same subjects that you could cite instead without being in a potential conflict of interest. - Rainwarrior 05:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rainwarrior, the 3-revert rule, the spirit & letter of the rules

Rainwarrior has again proved his interest is not in the article, but only in his desire to censor the research of Bob Fink. His last comment above contains two untruths, a common feature of his remarks.

He writes: "...there are plenty of other (less obscure) articles by other authors about these same subjects..." which is not true, and he cannot name them. Other authors may have written on the evidence I discovered from ancient art that show clues to harmony in antiquity, but he cannot name ANY. His claim that the evidence of ancient harmony is "tangentially relevant" to the subject of "harmony" is also untrue, on the face of it.

He is a troll who loves to repeatedly claim my actions as w/COI, and as violations of w/auto and wiki/POV and so on, that I am a rule-breaker & a spammer. But he himself rigidly and fixatedly interprets wiki-rules to suit his own personal obsessiveness with me as an author editing and citing my own sources (quoted above) -- even though, if I cite them using secondary sources they would be acceptable under the rules (also quoted above in the Talk).

But he has now violated my right to do that by censoring (from "Further Reading") even the secondary sources, thus writing his own Wikipedia rules to the effect that no author can ever edit or cite his/her own work ever!!! And now himself breaking the spirit of the rules he pretends to "respect."

Rainwarrior is therefore totally hypocritical and his judgement has apparently become deeply corrupted by his fanatic hatred of all things related to Bob Fink. What's THAT got to do with "Harmony"??

Here is how Wikipedia describes a troll (below), which can be compared to Rainwarrior by simply reading the (unfortunately, quite long) argumentative, untruthful, hostile, self-contradictory, sneakily abusive, provocatively slanderous, and "creative" writings by Rainwarrior on various Talk pages. (These are pages, which as a musicologist I have been mildly active, as has my publisher been earlier a year ago, when none of us were aware of all the rules (Talk:Musical_acoustics, here, Talk:Divje_Babe Talk:Trio_theory) and some others).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_a_troll

"Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. Trolling is deliberate violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces. It necessarily involves a value judgement made by one user about the value of another's contribution. (Because of this it is considered not to be any more useful than the judgement 'I don't agree with you' by many users, who prefer to focus on behaviors instead of on presumed intent.)... The defining characteristic of a troll in this case is not the content of the edit, but the behavior in discussing the edit, and the refusal to consider evidence and citations or to accept consensus or compromise....The nature of trolling is to be disruptive, and one of the most disruptive things that can be done is to find new ways to cause trouble that aren't quite against the rules. No matter how great your definition of trolling may be, a dedicated troll will find something you haven't thought of yet." Wiki continues:
"This, then, is something of a catch-all category -- if a user is being continually disruptive, and no amount of politeness, consensus, mediation, or anything else is reining them in, they are trolling." (NOTE: I have repeatedly offered to correct any citations that were not secondary sources since some may have been mistakenly placed last year; twice offered to negotiate Rainwarrior's demands, but he has refused to reply. He also is virtually never specific, but vague when asked questions.) Wikipedia Continues:
- ' "When a user, in a conflict of any sort, insists on the letter of a rule while grossly violating its spirit, this is often a sign of trolling.... Of course, sometimes trolls cannot be ignored without compromising the integrity of an article" -- particularly in the case of "edit war trolling" ALL of which edit-wars Rainwarrior has started in order to provoke disruption and endless debate.

When reading any of the TALK pages, note the similarity of the Wiki descriptions to Rainwarrior's approach. (Emph. added) --Bob Fink 65.255.225.47 14:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin by pointing out that in no way has Rainwarrior's most recent edit violated Three revert rule which states that "an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia page within a 24 hour period (emphasis mine). The edit in question is the first made by Rainwarrior in five days. This accusation is as baseless as the previous charge of vandalism.

I suggest the author of these two references present his arguments for inclusion under a separate section. As it is, they are hidden within rather long posts containing incorrect accusations and lacking in civility.

I regret that I must again refer the user to the code of conduct policy. Victoriagirl 17:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the above

Note -- from Wiki, re civility: "...incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress..." That's a definition that Wikipedia seems to accept. If so, then Rainwarrior has been uncivil to me for months.

I have offered evidence of that, in the Talk pages I mentioned. Was that read by Victoriagirl? Or is the charge of incivility being hurled only at me without looking open-mindedly and fairly at ALL the evidence? As I quoted above: "The nature of trolling is to be disruptive, and one of the most disruptive things that can be done is to find new ways to cause trouble that aren't quite against the rules." Well, I think Rainwarrior has done that in this case. The three-revert rule is mentioned on many Wiki pages. Perhaps the page I read some time ago didn't include the full definition or the 24-hour limit. But Rainwarrior breaks more rules than that one.

Rainwarrior continually calling my motivations as "self-promotion" without offering any evidence and without assuming good faith (especially in light of me admitting that as newbies, mistakes were made about posting links a lonmg time ago) is evidence of provocation, no? And it's provoking especially since NO ONE can read minds and motivation, and especially since the evidence I ask to be read indicates when taken as a whole that self-promotion is inconsistent with my character and life history -- to an unbiased onlooker.

Rainwarrior has never written anywhere in all these thousands of words that it is even possible that self-promotion was not my motivation (as "good faith' would indicate). And considering that every edit war on the pages mentioned was started with bad-faith edits by Rainwarrior, by assuming the worst motivations on my part -- and which "wars" were never started by me -- check out the facts, and find out what is the whole truth, rather than seizing upon a "technicality" that captures the literal words of a guideline -- thus insisting "on the letter of a rule while grossly violating its spirit," which seems here to be used to protect Rainwarrior's bad-faith "mind-reading summaries" for his edits. So that means I too can revert as many times as Rainwarrior if I wait 25 hours for the third edit?

Interesting that none of the other points I made are considered or dealth with. Just the one defending how to "legally" get away with the reverts Rainwarrior targeted at me rather than for the good of the article. Very one-sided "cherry-picking" approach, don't you think? Please examine your arguments in the light of all the evidence and the spirit of the issue? Is that possible to do? The rules were not meant to be used as a weapon to chase scholars away, or to target individual editors. They are being used, however, exactly as such, whether you can see that or not. I've lived long enough, as a Jew, as a civil rights & social-justice activist to recognize when I am being screwed.

It is important to look at a situation as a whole, yes? Namely, keeping in mind, as the Wiki/troll page wrote: "the refusal (by Rainwarrior) to consider evidence and citations or to accept consensus or compromise." And mindful of basic ethics of seeing the spirit as well as ONLY the technicality of the issue and the rules. Anyway, in keeping with the technicality of "24 hours" that I missed up to now, I will remove my accusation. But the rest of my points remain unaddressed, unrecognized, unconsidered, marginalized or ignored. But. Suit yourselves. "The tree that cannot bend with the wind -- breaks." (anon.) --Bob Fink, 65.255.225.42 21:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]