User talk:CleffedUp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Introduction

This space for rent.

[edit] Original Research vv. Ranges

Before presuming to enforce a rule, you might actually read it.

"An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

  • It introduces a theory or method of solution;
  • It introduces original ideas;
  • It defines new terms;
  • It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
  • It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
  • It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
  • It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source."

Discerning one's vocal range doesn't meet any of these criteria. To a proper musician this is a matter of simple observation. Since the guideline "does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia," you're out of line. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CleffedUp (talk • contribs) .

Please do not make personal attacks towards me. The text you have cited says that "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts... in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;" which is what working out the range of a singer does if you don't source it to a reliable citation. --I'll bring the food 18:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Also, whistle register is a neoligism.--I'll bring the food 18:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, to further clarify:
When one of our editors (in this case, you) listens to a musical piece with an analytical, trained ear, and determines what one or more musical notes in it is; one is originally analysing a piece. Original research can take a number of forms, depending on the discipline it pertains to ...it typically ... involves direct ... observation of the researched subject, e.g. ...in the field. Original analysis is original research.
The problem is, Wikipedia is not the place for original research, this is an official policy. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. The source must be from a reliable journal, publication or website. Please note, Blogs do not count to this end. Wikipedia:No original research is one of "three content-governing policies" on Wikipedia. They are 'rules', or 'laws' on what you can and cannot put in an article. The other two are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
You have broken (perhaps accidentally) one or more of these policies. If you choose to continue adding such content or placing such content back in to Wikipedia when it has been taken out of that particular article; it would most probably be considered bad faith editing on your part. Bad faith editing is an act for which it is quite possible to be banned for, especially if you add bad faith edits after being warned for it 3 times - some users consider it very similar to, or even identical to vandalism.
Sincerely,
--I'll bring the food 18:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Complete the quote: "any personal analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position the editor may hold. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article." And just what "personal opinion" is "one trying to advance" by publishing a singer's range? The observation of one's range is neutral and verifiable. Further, the same guideline reads "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia," leaving you without a leg to stand on in a meaningless quest in the deaggregation of information in the public domain. CleffedUp 05:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
...and the pages in question are apparently gone, making this moot. CleffedUp 06:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Many people add their favorite singer to the range they think is most impressive for that singer to be able to sing. Such is advancing one's personal position on a subject. Please note that specialist knowledge must be sourced. Such is how wikipedia works.--I'll bring the food 16:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/l/e/User_talk%7ECleffedUp_806b.html"