User:Freshacconci/sandbox

(✉)

 talk to me 

 freshacconci  (✉) 16:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

New York Eye and Ear Control

The 'Presents' of Michael Snow Rosenbaum, Jonathan. Film Comment; New York17.3 (May/Jun 1981): 35-38,80.

This program includes Snow's first major film work, New York Eye and Ear Control. Featuring a legendary free jazz score by Albert Ayler and Don Cherry, this rarely-screened landmark of the North American avant-garde incorporates Snow's "walking woman" works, in which an instantly recognizable flat sculpture, often seen in silhouette, is placed in a variety of real-world situations. https://filmstudiescenter.uchicago.edu/events/2009/short-films-michael-snow-eye-and-ear-control

This film contains illusions of distances, durations, degrees, divisions of antipathies, polarities, likenesses, complements, desires. Acceleration of absence to presence. Scales of Art – Lift, setting-subject, mind body, country city pivot. Simultaneous silence and sound, one and all. Arc of excitement, night and daylight. Aide. side then back then front. Imagined and Real. Gradual, racial, philosophical kiss.

Conceived, shot and edited by myself in 1964. I selected the group of musicians: Albert Ayler, Don Cherry, John Tchicai , Roswell Rudd, Gary Peacock, Sonny Murray. It is one of the greatest jazz groups ever. The music used on the soundtrack and other takes from the recording sessions have recently (1966) been issued on record (ESP-DI K 1016). Paul Haines wrote the prologue which appears in the film. Walking Women Works (1960-67). The Eternal. The Alarm Clock.-M.S. https://lux.org.uk/work/new-york-eye-and-ear-control

Publish the article sorry, but I' don's see anything wrong with this draft. There are many reliable references supporting it. I support the references. Publish it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.167.209 (talk • contribs)
 * Thank you for your respectful comment and fairness. I agree with your regarding reliable references. I support facts not fictions. This short draft is supported with facts. I'm so sorry to see that someone keeps deleting this page. As such, I have contested the deletion below as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs)
 * Oh, for the love of... Do you seriously think anyone believes you? We know these IP addresses are all you. Do you think "responding" to a comment you already posted from an IP address is going to make other editors believe that this is an actual conversation? IP addressed can be traced by anyone.  freshacconci  (✉) 18:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And as for "someone [who] keeps deleting this page", that would be numerous editors, not one person. Many editors discussed this situation and agreed that it was not appropriate for Wikipedia. Do not be disingenuous and imply that there's one editor with some sort of vendetta.  freshacconci  (✉) 18:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * it is our sacred human responsibility to focus on the references, facts. Respecfully, I ask to apply fairness & fairness only. I support a fair understading of the matter. British Spelling 18:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs)
 * It's clearly futile to have this discussion. Let me just remind you then, that there is no "sacred human responsibility" in any of this. Please see WP:NOT. There is no "right" to have a Wikipedia article. There is no "fair use doctrine" at Wikipedia, whatever that's supposed to mean. There was a very thorough and very fair discussion that took place here. In bad faith, you continued your sock activity in that discussion after the very obvious sock patterns were pointed out. Through your various socks you spoke of "respect" but I see no respect from you. You have no problem wasting others' time. You have no problem with being dishonest about sockpuppetry. You have no problem with attempting to use Wikipedia solely for self-promotion. This is all profoundly disrespectful. There was a discussion based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines and as a result of your repeated re-creation of the article it has been deleted and salted.  freshacconci  (✉) 19:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Reading such comments by you make me think that you did not read references at all. I have noticed over and over that a user is not beeing fair to this author (by deleting his page twice). Again, let me make this clear: I have zero personal connection with the author; I've read many of his books and I cannot wait to read his new book which he has been writing in the UK for months. (I know via social media that the author is in the UK even at this moment. For God's sake, enough with such unfair treatment of author. Again, let us focus on facts (sources, references) and help Wikipedia, together. If any editor continues to use Wikidedia as a negative tool, I may have to report this to the head of Wikipedia. Let's work together to make the world a better place. Regards. British Spelling 22:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because it is supported by numerous reliable reference. The page has been shortened and most of the works by this author have received media attention. Please refer to 'Bibliograph' below, plus click on the links. Thank you and have a lovely day. British Spelling 17:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Deleted twice
This article has been deleted twice, once speedy deleted and then an AfD. The article and the deletion discussion were riddled with sockpuppets of the article subject and clearly this is happening here too as we have an IP pretending to be uninvolved offering an "opinion" and we also have the draft article creator, another clear sock. The article has been salted to prevent further recreations, which is why Moglica went the draft route.  freshacconci  (✉) 17:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Freshacconci, thank you for your time. The article present reliable source references which support its facts, and only facts. I don't know why someone keeps doing this against this writer who has been published by many publishers as "Lumo Skendo", "M&B", "Geer" etc.... The practical effect of the fair use doctrine of Wikipedia applies here. Let's focus on references as well as the bibliography on the draft page. Since I speak with facts, I'm sorry I have to disagree. Deleting it for the third time will show an unfair use of Wikipedia and an unfair treatment. None of us wants that. Thus, please have a moment to click on the links that support the nobility of the author (an author of 15 works), with numerous reviews. Cheers!

Contested deletion
Keep itHey, I'll keep my message short, sharp, and simple. This page is short and strait to the point. This page should not be speedily deleted because it's a good page. Why would we do that? Wikipedia a place for all noble people. --99.238.148.64 (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion
Good sources support the page hey there, in my view, this page should not be speedily deleted because good sources support the page. bye!(your reason here) --99.238.148.64 (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This is not a deletion discussion
Posting from IP addresses at University of Toronto & Harbord (Special:Contributions/99.238.148.64), and Church & Wellesley (Special:Contributions/99.255.167.209) is not fooling anyone into thinking that these are comments from different people. This is also not a deletion discussion, so attempting to vote here is pointless (and it's especially futile since we clearly see it's two IP addresses in Toronto).  freshacconci  (✉) 20:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, reading such comments as 'fooling anyone' is not true at all. I started the draft, because I have noticed that a user is not beeing fair to this author (by deleting his page twice)Let me make this clear: I have zero connection with the author; I've read many of his books and I cannot wait to read his 16th book which he has been writing in the UK for months. (I know via social media that the author is in the UK even at this moment. Therefore, for God's sake, enough with this way of 'unfair treatment'. Let's focus on facts and help Wikipedia, together.


 * You posted twice from the same IP address, that's what I mean about not fooling anyone. We know it's the same IP address. We know that it's from U of T. And again, no one, no one is being unfair. The article went through the proper procedures. One person ("a user") did not delete the article twice. And we know from the sockpuppet investigation that all these IP addresses are affiliated with Moglica.  freshacconci  (✉) 22:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * while reading such comment by you make me think that you did not read references at all. I have noticed over and over that a user is not beeing fair to this author (by deleting his page twice). Again, let me make this clear: I have ZERO personal connection with the author; I've read many of his books and I cannot wait to read his new book which he has been writing in the UK for months (I know via social media that the author is in the UK even at this moment). For God's sake, enough with such unfair treatment of author. Again, let us focus on facts (sources, references) and help Wikipedia, together.
 * The references were discussed at the deletion discussion. I've read them. Every editor who commented at the discussion read the references. And for the last time, no one "user" deleted the article. There is a process; you took part in that process. It was clear and fair. You claim that Moglica is in the UK and that you have no connection to Moglica. You claim to have read all 15 of his books and he's been in the UK for months writing a 16th book. I'm guessing you're fluent in Armenian? And you know a great deal about Moglica's schedule for someone who doesn't have a connection with him. And Moglica quickly put up some photos on Twitter right after this discussion started. Nevertheless, let's say he's in the UK right now. You claim you are in Toronto on your userpage. Yet this edit states you are saying "Hello from the UK". Seems strange. Don't bother responding, as I'm finished with this discussion.  freshacconci  (✉) 23:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * what's wrong with beeing a fan of an author? If you don't like the author, that does not mean that all is in the same boat. By the way, Moglica has been in the UK for months, and I cannot wait to attend his book signing events whilst he returnes to Toronto. Be fair, because God is watching us. Good bye!