User talk:Doxent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk page

±Welcome!

Hello, Doxent, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Do not vandalise! (from an unsigned comment left by Doxent on my talk page)

You've vandalised the lists of pop basses, baritones and tenors. Leave it alone please. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doxent (talk • contribs) 10:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Doxent.
When one of our editors (in this case, you and others) listens to a piece of music with an analytical ear, and determines what the range of a singer is, the colour of tone of their fach or even a note being strummed in a complex commercial work, 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 rule. 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 3 wiki-laws, as it were. The other two are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
You have broken one or more of these laws. If you choose to break it again, it will be deliberate vandalism, an act for which we believe you could be disciplined for, as you have now been warned. Please note warnings for original research additions, reversions back to articles containing them, and other related edits inc. forms of original research will most likely be counted along with warnings for other types of vandalism, you are essentially losing one of your 3 strikes. If the case is particularly serious, one of our admin's could block you on the spot.
Sincerely,
--I'll bring the food 13:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Doxent, Take note that what IBTF is talking about in many cases are guidelines. That is not to say he is not right, this is just his tone. For instance this "3 strikes" he talks about may be formally or informally a rule, or guideline, but since he quotes no source - I cannot tell you which it is. In addition, there are no LAWS on Wikipedia. Where that nonsense comes from I'm not sure. (I'm sure he will tell us.)

That said, his statement about getting citations is essentially correct. That is, I have no way, as a fellow editor, to support your writting, or perhaps say it should be excluded. Typically, a fellow editor should ask for references as much as possible, be tolerant and act in good faith, until shown otherwise.

In my case, I have my own issues, namely Canthaxanthin. I have made the claim that the article is unreliable. To which, he added a offical government citation countering my claim. As such, I am obliged to show a counter claim; this I am in the process of doing. The end result is Wikipedia will be a better source of information that if just one person worked on it, or two in collaberation.

While I might be the first person to call his ideas lacking and his actions abrasive, he is essentially correct. Please add some good citation, and use your talkpage, or my talkpage, or even IBTF's talkpage to create a link to the list. This way we all can at least note what it is we are talking about. meatclerk 16:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LisaNova

Please assist with the LisaNova article! thanks! Chavatshimshon 08:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Gordonlightfootcurrent.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gordonlightfootcurrent.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Gordonlightfootcurrent.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gordonlightfootcurrent.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJTalk 05:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JoJo is NOT an Soprano

her voice is too dark and range not big enough x 82.25.178.76 22:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

and on that note, Matthew Bellamy sure as hell isn't a baritone XD who added him as that, seriously? He's definately a tenor (even though he can go down to an A2, you very rarely hear him going below that D3 or so, and even that is a pretty rare occurence). Thanks for keeping that page up though, it's really useful IMO. -also, Mike Patton is definately not a Bass, he can't go much lower than around an F2 without going into vocal fry, and he can easily use his falsetto up to at least an Ab5 (Pink Cigarette after the final chorus). I'm not too sure what to classify him as though, I'm thinking Baritone since he sticks mostly in that range.