As a user new to Wikipedia, I am utterly flabbergasted to discover that a Wikipedia user deleted a sentence of mine that provided an appropriate introduction to an intelligent contribution in the area of musical notation, on the "Musical Notation" page, called "JCS Notation."
I would have thought that those who engage in the intelligent pursuit of reading and writing the Wikipedia encyclopedia would have had a greater ability to recognize the value of such a contribution.
So profoundly disappointed I am to learn that this is the quality of the Wikipedia "community," that no introduction to any other contribution shall be made using such a . . . "vehicle."
DareNotBecause ( talk) 06:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I downright refuse to engage in any war of editing. A war of editing is the epitome of stupidity: "You're wrong." "No I'm not." "Yes you are." "No I'm not." "Yes you are." Therefore, the deletion of my appropriate introduction to an intelligent contribution will most certainly be allowed to endure.
It is clear that this society deserves no intelligent contributions. This is a society in which those who have the most come home to watch television commercials--on $8,000 television sets--that feature animated, talking toilet paper.
DareNotBecause ( talk) 00:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfavorably, for society, the rules of "notability" ultimately mean this:
If only one person on the earth can understand the value of something, then that something--no matter how valuable or useful it may be--should be ignored by all of the rest.
The implications of this staggeringly sad situation are mind-blowing and can foster only the bleakest of possible outcomes.
I hope that this will be my last post, for I fear that someone may allege that I am filling the Wikipedia servers with an "inappropriate" one-thing-or-the-other and delete it.
DareNotBecause ( talk) 04:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
By the "General notability guideline," I see that it is OK to have an article in Wikipedia about a porn star, along with an excruciatingly detailed description of some of the gruesome activities in which she has been known to engage, but it is not OK to have an article about a useful, musical notation, simply because there isn't a whole bunch of folks already using it. Of course, the whole point of creating such an article is so that a whole bunch of folks can learn about it--so that the whole bunch can use it.
And I just tried to put a SENTENCE into an existing article, nevermind create a whole article on my own.
You must admit, being civil under such . . . circumstances is . . . somewhat difficult.
But alas, I fully realize that the encyclopedia requires a set of rules, however frustrating that set may sometimes be.
DareNotBecause ( talk) 08:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- There you have it: the encyclopedia is what it is, more of a report on notable (there's that word again) features of the world as it stands now, and stood historically, gruesome bits included. It is not a journal for publicizing original new ideas. All that is laid out in What Wikipedia is not. Thanks for continuing to respond in a rational civil manner. I understand that cool can be difficult to keep when you feel your baby has been thrown out, bathwater and all.
- Things such as standard musical notation and tab have been working for centuries, and nowadays abc notation finds a lot of use; some folks can even read abc directly, without converting it to regular staff notation. At first glance, I had a hard time understanding JCS notation. What is it about JCS notation that makes it comparable or superior to existing systems? __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 13:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your response and your understanding. It is unusual to receive such a pleasing and understanding response.
Yes, I have calmed down a little since last week.
Here is a reply to your inquiry about JCS Notation:
The intention was never to have the notation function as a replacement for any other, be exploited for money, or be used in tandem with any computer program or programs; it was and is intended merely to be "another option," primarily for the area of lead sheets and commercial music, and to be read strictly by the human musician. Another "tool in the toolbox," if you will.
Here are some of its strengths:
- It is as simple as can be, once the overall visual ceases to distract - It is easily implemented via copying, cutting, and pasting functions, in common text editors, without the need for expensive, proprietary programs - It functions and is manipulated in a way that is similar to that of traditional notation - Like traditional notation, but unlike other text-based systems, it offers the benefits of spatial placement - It can facilitate the notation of sophisticated compositional structures, because the syntax that is used to indicate the flow of the music is significantly simpler--and therefore more manageable--than the associating syntax necessary in traditional notation - Polyphony is very easily implemented--merely by bringing in additional "specifications"--and very easily perceived - Any user can very easily define new, custom "specifications" and add them or remove them at any time - Degree of limitations is low; degree of flexibility, consistency, and reliability is high - It continues the tradition of accidentals (but without key signatures!), in a unique way in which the spelling of notes is no longer as great a concern as would be with traditional notation, because spatially, there no longer is a "y axis" to worry about (with respect to neighboring pitches and the creation of odd melodic intervals) - Rhythmic values and pitch are no longer inextricably linked, as they are in traditional notation. This facilitates transcribing immensely, as the musician can completely separate the transcribing of pitch from the transcribing of rhythm - It is suitable to be used to notate cues for video, film, etc., as it is able to meet the demands of these disciplines - It has a very low "learning curve"--a couple of weeks, and the user should have it (assuming that the user is fluent with traditional notation) - For those seeking to learn to read traditional notation, it can facilitate the learning of many of the aspects of rhythm, because "actual beats" are always explicitly marked, whereas in traditional notation, the student must actively determine "where the beats fall" - There are some other useful features of the notation that have not yet been publicly demonstrated
DareNotBecause ( talk) 01:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The
recent edit you made to
Talk:Musical notation has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the
sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative
edit summary. You may also wish to read the
introduction to editing. Thank you.
Dreadstar
†
01:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, WP has a guideline on notability. Referring to it would be more effective than removing other editors' comments from a talk page. [1]
- The Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines have more about removing other editors' comments from a talk page. [2] [3]
- WP also has extensive help.
- -- Jtir ( talk) 22:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
As a user new to Wikipedia, I am utterly flabbergasted to discover that a Wikipedia user deleted a sentence of mine that provided an appropriate introduction to an intelligent contribution in the area of musical notation, on the "Musical Notation" page, called "JCS Notation."
I would have thought that those who engage in the intelligent pursuit of reading and writing the Wikipedia encyclopedia would have had a greater ability to recognize the value of such a contribution.
So profoundly disappointed I am to learn that this is the quality of the Wikipedia "community," that no introduction to any other contribution shall be made using such a . . . "vehicle."
DareNotBecause ( talk) 06:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I downright refuse to engage in any war of editing. A war of editing is the epitome of stupidity: "You're wrong." "No I'm not." "Yes you are." "No I'm not." "Yes you are." Therefore, the deletion of my appropriate introduction to an intelligent contribution will most certainly be allowed to endure.
It is clear that this society deserves no intelligent contributions. This is a society in which those who have the most come home to watch television commercials--on $8,000 television sets--that feature animated, talking toilet paper.
DareNotBecause ( talk) 00:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfavorably, for society, the rules of "notability" ultimately mean this:
If only one person on the earth can understand the value of something, then that something--no matter how valuable or useful it may be--should be ignored by all of the rest.
The implications of this staggeringly sad situation are mind-blowing and can foster only the bleakest of possible outcomes.
I hope that this will be my last post, for I fear that someone may allege that I am filling the Wikipedia servers with an "inappropriate" one-thing-or-the-other and delete it.
DareNotBecause ( talk) 04:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
By the "General notability guideline," I see that it is OK to have an article in Wikipedia about a porn star, along with an excruciatingly detailed description of some of the gruesome activities in which she has been known to engage, but it is not OK to have an article about a useful, musical notation, simply because there isn't a whole bunch of folks already using it. Of course, the whole point of creating such an article is so that a whole bunch of folks can learn about it--so that the whole bunch can use it.
And I just tried to put a SENTENCE into an existing article, nevermind create a whole article on my own.
You must admit, being civil under such . . . circumstances is . . . somewhat difficult.
But alas, I fully realize that the encyclopedia requires a set of rules, however frustrating that set may sometimes be.
DareNotBecause ( talk) 08:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- There you have it: the encyclopedia is what it is, more of a report on notable (there's that word again) features of the world as it stands now, and stood historically, gruesome bits included. It is not a journal for publicizing original new ideas. All that is laid out in What Wikipedia is not. Thanks for continuing to respond in a rational civil manner. I understand that cool can be difficult to keep when you feel your baby has been thrown out, bathwater and all.
- Things such as standard musical notation and tab have been working for centuries, and nowadays abc notation finds a lot of use; some folks can even read abc directly, without converting it to regular staff notation. At first glance, I had a hard time understanding JCS notation. What is it about JCS notation that makes it comparable or superior to existing systems? __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 13:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your response and your understanding. It is unusual to receive such a pleasing and understanding response.
Yes, I have calmed down a little since last week.
Here is a reply to your inquiry about JCS Notation:
The intention was never to have the notation function as a replacement for any other, be exploited for money, or be used in tandem with any computer program or programs; it was and is intended merely to be "another option," primarily for the area of lead sheets and commercial music, and to be read strictly by the human musician. Another "tool in the toolbox," if you will.
Here are some of its strengths:
- It is as simple as can be, once the overall visual ceases to distract - It is easily implemented via copying, cutting, and pasting functions, in common text editors, without the need for expensive, proprietary programs - It functions and is manipulated in a way that is similar to that of traditional notation - Like traditional notation, but unlike other text-based systems, it offers the benefits of spatial placement - It can facilitate the notation of sophisticated compositional structures, because the syntax that is used to indicate the flow of the music is significantly simpler--and therefore more manageable--than the associating syntax necessary in traditional notation - Polyphony is very easily implemented--merely by bringing in additional "specifications"--and very easily perceived - Any user can very easily define new, custom "specifications" and add them or remove them at any time - Degree of limitations is low; degree of flexibility, consistency, and reliability is high - It continues the tradition of accidentals (but without key signatures!), in a unique way in which the spelling of notes is no longer as great a concern as would be with traditional notation, because spatially, there no longer is a "y axis" to worry about (with respect to neighboring pitches and the creation of odd melodic intervals) - Rhythmic values and pitch are no longer inextricably linked, as they are in traditional notation. This facilitates transcribing immensely, as the musician can completely separate the transcribing of pitch from the transcribing of rhythm - It is suitable to be used to notate cues for video, film, etc., as it is able to meet the demands of these disciplines - It has a very low "learning curve"--a couple of weeks, and the user should have it (assuming that the user is fluent with traditional notation) - For those seeking to learn to read traditional notation, it can facilitate the learning of many of the aspects of rhythm, because "actual beats" are always explicitly marked, whereas in traditional notation, the student must actively determine "where the beats fall" - There are some other useful features of the notation that have not yet been publicly demonstrated
DareNotBecause ( talk) 01:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The
recent edit you made to
Talk:Musical notation has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the
sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative
edit summary. You may also wish to read the
introduction to editing. Thank you.
Dreadstar
†
01:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, WP has a guideline on notability. Referring to it would be more effective than removing other editors' comments from a talk page. [1]
- The Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines have more about removing other editors' comments from a talk page. [2] [3]
- WP also has extensive help.
- -- Jtir ( talk) 22:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)