Being a reformer on the English Wikipedia and further afield in the Wikimedia movement brings me into contact with many people who have vested interests in resisting change. I am truly grateful for their advice, which has been important to my ongoing program of self-improvement. Here is a list of some of the most helpful comments from March 2013 to March 2014—all rigorously fact-checked to exclude mistruths and exaggerations (diffs available on request):
I don't volunteer my time to put up with pompous asses like you.
"We won't deal with Tony1 because negotiating with terrorists is "bad", mmmmkay?"
"You are so full of nonsense."
"a complete jerk"
"This user has been a thorn in our side almost from Day 1."
"the black cloud of [his] presence"
"I'm frankly outraged by the comment by Tony1."
"if there's something more-important than Tony1's ego about, would someone please shoot it? We might be able to get on with our lives then."
"Trashing the efforts of other volunteers"
"kind of creepy"
"Crawl back under the rock you live under and die"
"a history of harrassing editors whom he disagrees with"
"Tony, does a day go by when you don't find fault with the sun for shining, or with lambs for gambolling in the field or with fluffy clouds for passing in the vast sky?"
"Tony, for years you've essentially done nothing but complain about the work of others. STOP IT."
"You have people like tony1 who come in and wish death on others and engage in active harassment of people they dislike which drives down editor retention."
"I assume, since you feel qualified to decide how donors' money (including mine) should - or should not - be used, you will be standing for trustee at the earliest possible opportunity?"
"distinctly irritating at times"
"until after he ... comes back to a factual, accurate, and objective discussion ... no further topics should be discussed with Tony and no answer be given. "
[DYK hooks] must be interesting to Tony, or he's going to whine and bitch about it on this talk page.
"we should just ignore Tony1"
"... you're not happy unless you're bitching about the others' work ..."
"his ad nauseum has been going on for years. Time to stop."
"When, Tony1, do you intend to run for a WMF Trustee position so you can close down [the site]?
"deliberatively provocative and unfair ..."
"Tony's tantrum is unedifying ..."
"I do not condone Tony's provocation, I just am choosing to ignore it ..."
"all Tony ever does is scream. He loves to snipe at things he doesn't like ..."
"It's deeply irritating."
"When it comes to influencing people and making friends, I've rarely seen anyone being quite as bad at it as you."
"repeated personal attacks"
"if you bleat and whine and attack, these things happen."
"you constantly throw unfounded negativity"
"His style of 'rant' and entirely uncooperative style isn't amenable in any way to improving the site."
"he's attacking with his nonsense"
"... uniformly combative, unconstructive, and insulting. He has no evident interest in advancing our project"
"he prefers to use bullying and insults to advance his chosen positions
"strident and even inflammatory"
"I will not waste time responding to Tony1's nonsense, except to say that it's total nonsense."
"you'd rather do damage than really improve things"
Jimbo: "tired old points" … Tony: "They're not tired; they're supported by a sizeable proportion of Wikimedians." … Jimbo: "Being supported by a lot of people doesn't make them any less tired."
"Stuff your pompous self-righteousness up your arse"
A fresh round of invective in late June 2014, led by Scott Martin, an administrator who still enjoys the community's confidence (that includes yours) ... Resigned adminship and retired in August 2014, I see—that's good for the project ... aaand he's back again from late 2015. I hope I never have to deal with this person again. Tony(talk) 14:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
"Pretentious babble"—I didn't appear to provide the answer he wanted.
"You wouldn't know an attack if it hit you in the backside."—Scott Martin is a crusader for our civility policy.
"Rubbish"—Scott Martin shows skills that come in useful as an admin who deals productively with the editing community.
"Utter codswallop" —Scott Martin has a distinctive argumentative style.
"I didnt think my opinion of you could actually get lower"—Scott Martin
"buzz off"—Scott Martin has the potential to be succinct, too.
"get over yourself"—Scott Martin has a talent for aggressive, off-hand comments that belittle the recipient. This must come in very handy in his capacity as an admin dealing with the editorial community (see WP:ADMIN).
Scott Martin then trots back and forth between en.WP and the attack site [wikipediocracy.com Wikipediocracy]—the one you all support through your silence on its use by your fellow editors.
"a complete tosspot", he starts.
"dazzling ignorance ... or perhaps contempt", Scott Martin accuses there.
"you're an idiot"; "What a pathetic attempt at selective quoting and paraphrasing to push your own interpretation of events."—Scott Martin accuses others on the Wikipediocracy thread who don't agree with his tirade.
"poor little Tony"—Scott Martin on Wikipediocracy.
"All I'm getting is a big picture of Tony's bum on the horizon."—Scott Martin moves into sexualised language on Wikipediocracy.
"you risible, self-interested little toad"—Scott Martin's invective becomes virtuosic on Wikipediocracy.
"Good lord, what a pretentious little fool. You can practically hear his butthole over-tightening from here."—Scott Martin's strategy catches on among others at Wikipediocracy, which is now working towards violent imagery.
"whining ... idiocy".
"ridiculous pretention ... you can practically hear the pole squeaking. He could shave himself using a dental mirror."
"You haven't got a bloody clue."—Scott Martin comes back to ensure the tone is sustained. See below.
"The pole is stuck in the fundament. It's been joined by his head, so much so that he can see his own head when he sticks a mirror in his mouth."—Someone at Wikipediocracy is adding violence to the sexualised insults.
"Before I thought he was merely clueless. Now I think he is, not well."
"utterly rephrehensible. I say that without an ounce of vitriol"—Scott Martin returns with questionable logic.
"hissy fit ... sheer arrogance"
"Tony1 is a far bigger asshole than he originally appeared"
"complete bully like Tony1"
"Tony1 is oftentimes a jerk"
Insults from April 2015 onwards
"not only boring and unfunny but pretty offensive too, to be frank" – Michael Maggs, chair of WMUK
The letters in acronyms and initialisms are generally not separated by points or spaces (GNP, NORAD, OBE, GmbH). Points and spaces that were traditionally required have now dropped out of usage (PhD is now preferred over Ph.D. and Ph. D.).
I do not want merely to revert your changes without having discussed them with you, but I think that you are wrong here.
The case is rather clear for what concerns "chord/triad": more than once, a function is exerted by a 7th chord. It may even be argued that there are several historical reasons to think so. Rameau specifically associated his functions with specific dissonances: a 7th chord, for him, was a dominant, and a 6/5 chord a subdominant. Riemann had the theory of "feigned consonances", by which he meant that some chords, even if apparently consonant (i.e. triads), merely feigned consonance by supposing a dissonance without actually sounding it: the triad IV, for instance, was for him a subdominant because in included an implied 6th (say, F A C + D), a highly Ramist point of view; and the triad II similarly was a subdominant because it implied its 7th. So, I do believe that functions, especially at this early stage in the article, should be associated with "chord" rather than with "triad".
The case of "note/tone" is less clear and really depends on what you call a note, and a tone. A tone, for me, seems to refer to the sound of a ... note, while a note merely is a an abstract concept, in this case a degree of a scale. Functions, indeed, certainly do not depend on particular sounds, and they certainly depend on positions in the scale, the diatonic one in this case. The degrees of the diatonic scale certainly are abstractions: they do not even have a pitch.
Hello, I'm ATS. Ike Altgens is a Featured article candidate. I hope you have a few moments to check this article against the criteria so I may address any concerns and see this nomination through. My thanks in advance. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)