User talk:I'll bring the food/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] A welcome message, apparently

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. Again, welcome!--WillMak050389 18:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Please Take Head

Quote: I did not post the comment about dangerous that is attributed to me. This is a lie on the part of whoever put the unsigned comment part.--I'll bring the food 21:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I was aware of this, since I've noticed you always sign your posts. :) no worries.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ehmjay (talk • contribs) 09:24, July 4, 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you both seem to have trouble signing your comments. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
woah - I rarely leave my comments un-signed! The few times I do is just because I forgot and I usually go back and add them later. Also, I'll Bring The Food also signs his comments aswell from what I can tell. :: ehmjay 04:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greater Portsmouth

Denmead is not part of the Greater Portsmouth area as defined by the ONS. Denmead is not part of Waterlooville (although it has a Waterlooville postal address). The Greater Portsmouth area does not all use the 023 dialling code. Can you remove these please. Nuttah68 14:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The easiest way to clarify this would be to ask the parish council. Please cc me on any email you recieve. Thanks.--I'll bring the food 14:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
This is the link confirming Denmead parish is part of Winchester City Council
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2001/20011028.htm
This is the Wikipedia page confiming the previous link
Winchester district
Nuttah68 14:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I was already aware of that yesterday when I read the page's district info, however it does not change the fact that all Denmead homes have "Waterlooville" in the address and that all Denmead homes have 023 92 phone numbers. Denmead homes are also in the portsmouth phone book. Winchester is the political district in charge of the parish, not the actual area Denmead is in. In the same vein the new political seat Meon upper valley will have Havant in it, despite the Meon being a totally different area of Hampshire. The Meon is totally different by actual location and yet politically it is not.--I'll bring the food 14:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The Portsmouth Postal District stretches from Bognor to Warsash and includes the Isle of Wight. It is nothing like the same thing as the Greater Portsmouth area as defined by the Office of National Statistics.
The changes to the Denmead article now make less sense and locate the village in the wrong place now. Nuttah68 14:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
doesn't matter what Denmeads poastal address or phone numbers are. This article is about the ONS defined Greater Portsmouth area, which Denmead is not part of. Nuttah68 14:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you actually link to the information definining Either the Greater portsmouth area, or the portsmouth urban area?--I'll bring the food 14:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I know you value Hant's website as a form of acceptable source as you ascertained on a talk page with another person that:
"Hampshire County Council, a higher tier of government, recognises Liphook as a town as I have shown. Liphook has held markets since the 1600s until recently. It has held a fair and carnival annually since the same time. How much more do you want?"
Well, Hampshire County council recognises Denmead as a village within Waterlooville: [1]. How much more proof do you want? ;)--I'll bring the food 15:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
What Hampshire recognises is irrelevant. The article is about a government department recognised area, which does not include Denmead. A direct link is not possible as the data is held in downloadable zip folders. All the data is available at the geography section of www.ons.gov.uk. Do you have the same problem with districts of Fareham that are not included even they share postal and dialling code areas? Nuttah68 15:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I have told you where the data is located. As for the Denmead article. Waterlooville is not North West of Denmead. Denmead is not part of the 'Waterlooville postal area', no such thing exists. It does have a Waterlooville address. Similarly with Waterlooville-Havant, there is no postal connection. "both in administration and political terms" is pointless, the two terms are the same thing. The history section you have added is a copyright violation and MUST be removed. Nuttah68 15:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I didn't say it was north west, You are right, that needs altering. The history is not copy-vio because i have reworded it slightly.--I'll bring the food 15:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edit

Make sure content edits are not marked as minor as in [2]. Particularly as this is a controversial article. Thanks. Tyrenius 20:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, yes, unfortunately one person's NPOV can be another's POV, and as you may know some users use preferences so that minor edits don't show up for them in lists of some kind or another. So, spelling, punctuation, repeated word, wikilink are minor (usually), bit of grammar etc. If in doubt, probably don't minor it.

I'm not interested in treading the MJ waters, but I am interested in enforcing policy so that the work of editors can go ahead properly. Well, good for you, deleting libel. Tony Sidaway deleted a load of stuff too. It's incredible that a page can get that state. Following policy would solve 90% of the problems. I did add the fact tags, then someone else got the idea too, which is good, as it might actually lead to some verification, or else the point loses its argumentative power. So that's the easy thing. Don't say, "you're wrong" - just add a fact tag.

Nice to meet you too. If you need any assistance, let me know, and if there are any problems, supply diffs. Tyrenius 10:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikibreak

- CrazyRussian talk/email 20:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Yeah - I love this project. You can't help me with that. It's 2 minutes to 5pm here in New Jersey New York. That means CrazyRussian is going home, where he will help his wife tonight - watching the kids and cleaning up the apartment which is an unholy mess - and will not edit a word until tomorrow morning, it looks like... Thanks for caring... - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Imitation is the highest form of... nevermind. I'm off to Jersey! Wheeee....! - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Whistle_register_singers

It seems to be a recognised phenomenon, therefore valid? However, you can delete inclusion of any singer if there isn't a verifiable reference that they can reach or sing in this pitch. Someone's observation is as you point out OR and therefore not valid. I suggest getting more editors involved. Contact others who edit music. There are projects listed.[3] Tyrenius 00:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Unfree images

Thanks for your conscientiousness in this. I haven't got the time right now to go into it, and it's not a specialist area of mine either. I wonder if you could try Jkelly who is an admin with particular concern for copyright, or Angr who is also an admin and has posted on ChrisSimpson's page about images. If you need to, then feel free to get back to me again. Thanks. Tyrenius 08:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 15:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blu Cantrell

I have restore the section on voice that you ha removed. Whilst it needed references, I feel that it would have been better to {fact} or {cite} rather than remove an entire section. This is especially true since some of the information in that section has remained in place since April. Checking on the talk page, it turns out that IMDB at least can be used to somewhat substanciate the claims. Added the IMB reference, going back now to {cite} the section. LinaMishima 12:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Good call on removing the whistle register catagory. Better to have this verifie before adding the catagory. I should have removed it, really. LinaMishima 12:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I am willing to begrudgingly accept the IMDB ref to her 7th octave as I actually like her singing, despite the fact IMDB trivia is user-submitted but it does not mention Whistle register so that must stay out for now. whistle is lower, but there is not automatically an ability there.--I'll bring the food 12:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
By definition of the register (not the whistle voice), whistle register is range of pitches above E6. Since she is qualified as a 7th octave singer (per IMDB), how is she not a whistle register singer. Antares33712 15:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Because it is possible to have gaps in ones vocal range--I'll bring the food 15:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not possible. You are saying it is possible for someone to be able to sing F6 and not be able to sing a C6? The highest requires more vocal adduction than the lower. Name an example Antares33712 16:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
And besides, she sang the higher note anyway, so she would qualify as a whistle register singer (per the cats requirements) Antares33712 16:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Whistle register is different from the 7th octave completely, that is why we have 2 different categories for it.--I'll bring the food 16:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Since when? Antares33712 16:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You do not know that we have two different categories, 7th octave and whistle register? YOU CREATED THEM. See Minnie Ripperton for an artist with links to both cats.--I'll bring the food 16:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I CREATED THEM!!!!! But 7th octave singing is a superset of whistle register singing, not an entirely different category Antares33712 16:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
In the same way that a singer in 7th octave is not a whistle register singer, Slayer are not a Rock band, despite making Thrash Metal. Thrash metal is a superset of Rock, but it is not actually Rock, they have little in common with The Rolling stones. If one does not sing in whistle register and is not acclaimed for it, one is not a whistle register singer--I'll bring the food 16:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Thrash metal is a subset of Rock, or Rock is a superset of Thrash Metal, you mean. And there's a fair ammount of similarity between the work of Slayer and The Rolling Stones, but the genres of their works are more like distant cousins than identical twins :P
I'm just being facecious, don't worry about replying on my talk page for such a silly comment as this :P LinaMishima 16:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
This debate is very informative -- I remember looking at that article a few months ago and doubting its veracity in the whistle tone section.

LinaMishima, I have to disagree a little with your reasoning that "it would have been better to {fact} or {cite} rather than remove an entire section." I see how removing large chunks of established articles can be alarming, especially since it is difficult to source claims like whistle-tone without involving original research.

However, I've worked a bit on the (massive) backlog of uncited claims, and often finding sources for disputed material is impossible -- either because it's esoteric information (like the reference to an unreleased song), or because it's made up, or something else. How can we tell the difference between these? Often we can't.

WP:Verifiability states three principles that I've found useful:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

While I dearly love proving or disproving claims, I don't fee; obligated to let false information sit on pages. But I'm no expert, obviously, so feel free to disagree with me. This is my first attempt at Wiki-related debate.--Marysunshine 19:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages

Hello. Please don't edit others' comments on talk pages and please don't remove them unless you are moving them to an archive page or if they are vandalism. Also, please subst templates on user talk pages. Thanks — getcrunk what?! 15:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you think you are doing? You are not only reverting information which is uncited Original research onto the biographies of LIVING PERSON's you are also removing fact tags from information which is original research. Do you have any understanding of the principles of Wiki policy on living individuals and original research? [4] for example--I'll bring the food 15:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I have replied on my talk page. — getcrunk what?! 16:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Tamar Braxton

Don't have a problem with the note requiring a cite, but requiring a cite to show she is soprano (when she said on some program about Toni raxton that she was always the highest and demonstrating coloratura technique, you're reversions are silly. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see she is a soprano, unless you are now trying to assert she is a contralto (which would be very absurd) Antares33712 16:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I assert that without a reliable authoritive source, your edits are nothing more than original research which is utterly forbidden on wikipedia.--I'll bring the food 16:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vocal range

So, you can sing the second E above Middle C, but not the F one and half octaves above Soprano C? Bwecause if you are trying to assert that you cannot sing the F half an octave above Middle C, I don't believe you. All but the thickest of profundos have some ability around there. How then do you produce the E5? Antares33712 16:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I deaden the fundamental of my E4 and turn it into an E5 with my tongue.--I'll bring the food 16:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
So you are completely incapable of sing a G or A above Middle C Antares33712 16:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I can hit those notes in falsetto, but falsetto does not count in the ranges of anybody bar counter tenors--I'll bring the food 16:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please assume good faith

Rather than calling edits "original research" (sometimes sections that have been in place for a long time), please assume good faith, assume that a reference does indeed exist and {fact} or {unverified} the section instead. This also has the advantage of making the need for references more obvious than it is when a section is simply removed - and it's also far more embarrasing to the author! :P LinaMishima 16:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have edited over 100 articles today. Some of them grated a tad ;). I also know chunks are rubbish. On bio's of living people we have a responsiblity to remove incorrect and original information rather than ask for sources--I'll bring the food 16:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
we have a responsiblity to remove incorrect and original information rather than ask for sources
Could I have a reference for that, please? In my opinion, asking for sources tends to cause more productive changes than simply stripping away sections that are potentially correct but unsourced. In many cases it is hard to find a good quality source on some matters simply because a matter may be considered so obvious to those who are trained in the area as to not warrant a mention. LinaMishima 16:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy must be adhered to. Specifically, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material should not be posted to this article or its talk page(s). Such material must be removed without hesitation; the Three-revert rule does not apply to such removals.--I'll bring the food 16:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
see also (on that linked page) "Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.
Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below)."--I'll bring the food 16:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
"On bio's of living people we have a responsiblity to remove incorrect and original information rather than ask for sources--I'll bring the food 16:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)" Sure. Difficult to disagree with this as principle. But from priciples to practise there is a long way. How do you know what is incorrect or original information if you are not very well acquainted with the subject at hand? Probably you really don't. So it is not comforting to hear that you have edited 100 articles in a day apparently adhering to the "let's better delete the whole thing" principle - unless, of course, you are an expert on all the subjects. In that case: good job! Otherwise, I side completely with LinaMishima in the sense that deletion of large chunks of articles is a very counterproductive way of improving things. If, however, you want to continue, go, e.g., to George W. Bush. I think you should delete the entire first paragraph straight away. It is all unsourced information! ;-) --HJ 20:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TREES!!!!

Here is something for your User page. --Missingno. 16:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

or you could take the lady...> Image:18435269.jpg

Aww, cute.--I'll bring the food 16:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You're right: A suggestion, if I may

Well, I went and checked WP:LIVING, and you're right, bios of living people need to be completely cited. So, two suggestions if I may:

  • Add {blp} to articles found with unsubstanciated claims that have a high chance of being true (or their removal could be argued with). This will stop all kinds of hassle for everyone, as this points people at WP:LIVING, which explains your reasoning better than any edit reason.
  • Copy and paste the section being removed into the talk page for the article. This makes locating the section again easier, and makes a point that the section needs to be improved before being entered into the article again. I certainly tend to check the talk pages when a drastic change has been done, and it wouldn't hurt to encourage others to do the same.

LinaMishima 16:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - it should hopefully help us all avoid such silly discussions in the future. Added {blp} tags to the two people have been arguing over, and rv'd to your version changes to Tamar Braxton. LinaMishima 17:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
with respect to joining the biographies project...
Hmm, tempting, thanks :) I'll have a look into it, and see how practical it would be to find new references for biographies - I'd feel bad unless I'm actually being constructive as part of a project. LinaMishima 17:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, all the 100 or so singer biographies i just edited needed boxes saying what level they were and their importance on wiki, see Michael Jackson's talk page for one I just finished fiddling with at the top.--I'll bring the food 17:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A word of caution: derogatory material for BLP should not even be kept on talk pages, as it's still libellous. A way round this might be something like "There is no evidence whatsoever that Fred Bloggs ever sold his children into slavery, so it should on no account be put into the article, unless there are verifiable reliable sources that state otherwise." Tyrenius 00:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for inclusion of material in whistle register category

I'm having problems sorting out that whistle register category. After adding hundreds of fact tags to original research statements as you proposed and removing singers from the category one by one who are not sourced as having the ability (over 100 actually), a user is now rv'ing hundreds of changes [5]. Can you stop this, it is incredibly frustrating to have someone put back hundreds of unsourced statements and original research items on living person's biographies talk pages --I'll bring the food 15:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This user doesn't seem to understand that I only reverted his changes to others comments on talk pages. I think it's been cleared up by now. — getcrunk what?! 16:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


I'm very glad if it's been cleared up. However, let me be quite clear in case there is any residual problem. Non-negotiable wiki policy is VERIFY. This means that any material has to be referenced by a reliable source. Comments on talk pages are not a reliable source. Any editor has the right to remove any material from an article (or a category) that is not so referenced, if that editor chooses. It is up to the person wanting to include it to provide the reference. If someone reinstates material, knowing that it has been removed because it is not referenced, they are violating wiki policy and may have editor privileges withdrawn by being blocked. In the case of this particular list, this can be taken as a final warning, although one which I hope is unnecessary. Happy editing!

Tyrenius 20:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biography Newsletter August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 01:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page guidelines

Cheers. PS you forgot to sign your last post on Whistle talk. Tyrenius 14:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have? Where? --I'll bring the food 14:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't you! It's just that you did the last edit and the talk at the bottom of the page was unsigned. I've put the name underneath now. Tyrenius 14:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whistle register reversions

Myke hasn't edited since 9.05. Other people have but it's a very confused situation, as here you are putting someone back in the category [6]. The best thing is to spell out the problem on the whistle category talk page, and ask people to put their response there, so we have a central talking place. Tyrenius 15:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] for your diligence

The Editor's Barnstar
Dunno if you covet these pretties, but here's a barnstar for sticking to your guns on the [Category: Whistle register singers] and other issues. --Marysunshine 00:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I covet them, but I am completely honoured that you think my work is worthwhile, that means something to me. Thank you.--I'll bring the food 16:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A question about whistle register and sourcing

Would a short (a few seconds) audio clip of a singer accessing whistle register as defined in the article be verifiable enough? If not, I'll keep digging for sources. Crystallina 14:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the clip you? A homemade clip would be acceptable. you would have to be willing to allow other editors to verify it though, and your clip may be subjected to harsh editing by others depending on its quality. If it is homemade do take a good look at the licenses you choose. I'd go for the creative common's license as I believe it gives you more author rights. You may wish to look it up. But yes homemade is fine. If commercial, you will have to find an authoritive source saying that portion is whistle first. I would accept the classic Carey, or Riperton portions of song's in which everyone knows they hit whistle though. Especially Riperton, she made whistle commercially popular. --I'll bring the food 16:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
authoritive source saying that portion is whistle first
Surely this means that a clip alone is not enough, that an additional respected source (which can hence be referenced) would be needed first stating that the whistle register is accessed. LinaMishima 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
There are sources (reviews of her new album) for Carey stating songs in which she uses her whistle register, see her article at Mariah Carey.--I'll bring the food 16:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, considering I have no Wikipedia article, it wouldn't be about me. I was just wondering if clips would be acceptable sources for the contested singer articles. Of course, that requires a definition of whistle register as any note above X, which if I recall correctly is contested as well. Crystallina 16:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, i'm confused now, are we talking samples of the whistle register for the whistle register page as I thought we were, or are we talking specific artists?--I'll bring the food 16:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I see. Time to continue digging for sources, then. (I was talking about specific articles - just trying to see where I should direct my digging.) Crystallina 16:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
As an exception, you may post a sample of any artist's song (30 sec max tho), but if it includes whistle register you cannot label it so without a source, as such would break our OR rule. --I'll bring the food 17:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes more sense now. LinaMishima 17:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
For spefic articles, we need to have a respected source (magazine, academic paper, news report, review, etc) declaring the whistle register. But once we have one source to this effect, your sound samples would then be demonstrating this, rather than being original research. They would be much appreciated at that point :) LinaMishima 17:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need an explaination..

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Dickinson&diff=67995909&oldid=67602997

What brings you to this conclusion? That the article has copyright violations? — Prodigenous Zee - 01:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. It's copied whole sale from a fan site. However I'm rewriting it so there's not quite the need to delete it unless our attempts to sort it are continually thwarted. Now, if you excuse me, I'm off to delete original research in the Kelly Rowland article, in the vain hope it won't turn into an edit war.--I'll bring the food 14:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Mind pointing out which fan site? — Prodigenous Zee - 16:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd imagine somewhere off this one : [7]
After taking a quick look at that, I don't see any resemblance at all. Mind pointing it out exactly? — Prodigenous Zee - 02:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is not in the style of wiki at all and appears to be largely plagerised, where from is not really an interest of mine, however this site seems to have the entire beginning section of the article, and is older than wiki...--I'll bring the food 02:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. Any others? — Prodigenous Zee - 03:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, a quick flick of the first link i churned up for you reveals no copyvio's but does say it's from Time magazine. A quick flick of their articles reveals nothing on him whatsoever, but i'd bet it's infringed from there. But it's not so much that as the fact it's just not in the style of wiki, is it? It's not wikified at all. Check out Michael Jackson. That's how an article should be written.--I'll bring the food 03:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Canthaxanthin

I beg your pardon. Canthaxanthin is no longer used in the production of food. Astaxanthin is almost exclusively used in the production of salmon, eggs and other food product. Canthaxanthin was taken out of production because it cause human eye problems. In both europe and in the USA, it has been banned for some years from food production. If you read astaxanthin, you'll find almost every line footnoted. I know I wrote it.

I have not re-written it because I have no interest in it. If you would like to correct it, feel free.

As for the article you pointed to, it is sheer speculation on the author's part. I read that article early on and did not include it. Far too many errors and inconsistencies.

Any question? meatclerk 04:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, why are you spouting incorrect lies as facts? From the food website maintained by the UK government: "Are animal feeds permitted to contain canthaxanthin? Yes, canthaxanthin can be added to feeds intended for poultry and for farmed salmon and trout. It can also be used for some ‘companion animals’."[8] Cheers!--I'll bring the food 05:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for that correction. I will look into it and get you the European Commission's band on using this for salmon, etc. UK using it may be there error, certainly the errored with Mad Cow. meatclerk 05:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
"Canthaxanthin is a permitted colour additive in foods and animal feeds in many countries including the Mainland, EU, US and Canada." Food and Environmental Hygiene Department - Official Government body of Hong Kong I doubt they're lying.--I'll bring the food 06:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
As I've said I have no real interest in Canthaxanthin, other than the accuracy of the article. If you'll allow me time. I'll be happy to get a complete accounting. But till then, please hold off. meatclerk 06:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no edit war. If you are rightm I will update the information I have. And I will thank you... Thank you for the information you have given me so far. I will look into it. Thanks. meatclerk 06:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
If you remove information with clear relevance and sources repeatedly that is edit warring if i then start rv'ing you.--I'll bring the food 06:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I've marked the article in dispute and I've promised to look into your claims. In addition, you can look at my research material Canthaxanthine. meatclerk 07:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I've marked salmon as disputed also. I'm not taking this lightly. meatclerk 08:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

In a measure of good faith and to reduce the friction, I have removed the disputed tag from Canthaxanthin. However, this substance is not used for salmon. I am willing to leave this to you to update in whatever fashion you see fit. I will leave it as this, for now. meatclerk 04:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A rewrite of Canthaxanthin is ready. You are invited to review it hear. I plan to update this in a few days, likely 2006-10-12 PDT. --meatclerk 17:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sprotect tag on Talk:Evil

Adding the {{sprotected}} tag doesn't protect the page. Only administrators can protect a page & this can be requested at Requests for page protection. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 08:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't even know.--I'll bring the food 08:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi, I'll bring the food/Archive 1, thank you for applying for VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now authorized for use, so if you haven't already, simply download VandalProof from our main page and install it, and you're all set!

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User:Vishwin60/Userbox/VandalProof}} (which will add this user box) or [[Category:Wikipedians using VandalProof]] to your user page.

If you have any queries, please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! - GIen 11:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for the Barnstar!

...Wow! I'm actually a little at a loss for words now. Wow... I haven't been as active at ensuring things are sensible of late, as NOR enforcement can be very stressful (especially when you like dialogue to try and fix the problem) and my life was also very busy. This makes me feel better about all the drama involved. Thank you so much! :) LinaMishima 14:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What

What are you talking about? For one she is know for breathy vocals taht's not an insult that's what they are called and for 2 she is a seventh octave singer... check out "Free (Sail on)" "I want to thank you" and "I see you in a different light" just because you don't know it doesn't make it untrue....next time just ask before assuming. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baltimorecreole (talk • contribs) 18:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC).

as taken from what i posted on your user page:
Hello, Baltimorecreole.
When one of our editors (in this case, you) listens to a piece of music with an analytical ear, and determines what the key of the music is or even the note being strummed, 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 I will seek to have you banned, as you have been warned.
Sincerely,
--I'll bring the food 13:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

How dare you accuse me of vandalism when you were the one who utterly destroyed the whistle register singers page? Who the hell do you think you are? Meshionu! Amu jie ji! Nnukwu esu! Ike akpi! (If you must know, I'm typing in Igbo)! ODE BURUKU! NNA GI NA ARA MKPURU AMU! nnegi wu akwuna nnagi wu onye ohi! U b dey mgbada! IBU EZIGBO EWU,KAM GWAGI IHE SORO GI INAEDE KAMA MARA NA OTU MBOCHI AKA GA AKPARAGI BU ONYE OSHI, AS 4 NNE GI NA NNA GI HA ABUO AGWABEGI ONYE MURU GI. EMECHA JUO NNE GI ONYE MURU GI, LEE NWANNE GI NKE OZO IGA AHU NA OBUGI OTU NWOKE MURU UNU, NNEGI BU ASHAWO 5NAIRA.POLICE JIDE GI.-—Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix V (talk • contribs) 21:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You do realise a personal attack will probably be construed as a total breach of your final warning, right? You're also aware you were previously banned for personal attacks and that this new account of yours is a sockpuppet, right?--I'll bring the food 21:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Chineke di ma! You have no right to block me because you don't know what the words mean. Chineke di ma means OMG in Igbo.Phoenix V

[edit] Warning left

Warning left re. above nonsense. Please be cautious about labelling edits as vandalism, as they are not, if they are made in good faith, even if wrong. Of course, if ongoing bad faith edits occur, that is another matter. I am not making any judgement in this case by saying that. If you report something to me or elsewhere, it helps greatly to include diffs. Thanks. Tyrenius 22:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a word for the future: please decide how you're going to tackle a problem. Either ask an admin directly, or leave a request on AIV or somesuch, but don't do both, as it can lead to complications with different people not knowing what other people are doing, as in this case, which has now got to AN/I quite needlessly.[9] Thanks. Tyrenius 00:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a minor hiccup. The best thing is to leave a note in each place to say you've informed the other place/person, so everyone knows what's going on. Communication is very helpful. I have infef blocked ACB Mutant as a sockpuppet of Prof. M. Please let me know if there is recurrence. -- Tyrenius 19:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question!

Comment moved from your user page. -- Gogo Dodo 05:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I got the whistle registry infor from a presskit from her first CD so does it have to be online? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baltimorecreole (talk • contribs)

[edit] WikiProject Biography

Please see the talk page for more info; hopefully you can help me! --TheM62Manchester 09:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to the project... --TheM62Manchester 09:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I have replied on the biography page. please test your edits with "show preview" if at all possible, thx.--I'll bring the food 09:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Do not vandalise!

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)

[edit] Remember to be civil

stop adding utter rubbish based on your use of a GUITAR TUNER. They don't work on vox. They pick up harmonics of the voice too strongly. You're 14. Go play outside and stop adding rubbish to wikipedia)

Even if this is true, you should always try to remain as civil as possible, no matter how much other editors are being annoying. It doesn't help your (our) cause if they feel you're being nasty. Well done on catching the wrongful additions, though. LinaMishima 14:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biography Newsletter September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 00:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Jackson

Do you think it's acceptable to have non formatted at all refs in a GA? And {{Pokefair}} refers to pictures, you can use it for nearly everything. Highway Daytrippers 06:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly "It does not limit the copyright owners rights to sell the game. " makes it completely inappropriate for use within non game related photos.--I'll bring the food 22:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Far from it, I'm attempting to help you. I'd forgotten about the game thing, you should just change that to CD. I've created dozens of templates, I'm not "forcing" them on anyone. Highway Daytrippers 22:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, you don't need to note what info you have cited in the reference. Highway Daytrippers 21:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing. -Shannernanner 09:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Jackson's pitch

If you did some research on the internet or on the wikipedia People with aboslute pitch category section you would find that Michael Jackson does indeed have perfect pitch. As a musician myself I wouldn't even need an internet confirmation to confirm his pitch, but regardless there are a great many sources confirming this so please do not remove this category anymore, thank you.--Stardust6000 21:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And what is your authoritive source? Some random website with no notability or a blog? I thought so. Completely unnacceptable when we are talking about a biography of a living person. Someone's opinion is not valid on this subject. I will expect a source from a well known scientific body with previous research work on the subject as the only acceptable source. Random Press articles and other fan crud do not do the job.--I'll bring the food 21:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is one of many sources for you to go through. I wouldn't jump to conclusions so fast if I were you. [10]--Stardust6000 21:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That is actually a published blog by a user on the last.fm site, not an authoritive expert on the subject. I could create a user account on there and insist Michael Jackson was an elephant.--I'll bring the food 21:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is also a link to a scientific article discussing absolute Pitch. I was posting this while you were sending a new message[11]--Stardust6000 21:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, that is not an acceptable source. "About Psychology Today-WHO WE ARE-...many issues concerning our emotional well-being...family concerns...Our site has been designed to cut through these problems by providing easily accessible, well written and timely health information...". This is clearly a health site. This is totally out-of-scope. If this is acceptable I'm going to post that Michael Jackson is an elephant on my companies corporate website, clearly this will be incorrect, but as you seem to believe any source is acceptable, I blatently must be correct, after all, it'll be wyeth's site I'll be posting it on.--I'll bring the food 22:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the most official source I have found so far. It is an official website with a list of famous people with perfect pitch. Michael Jackson is right in there among other famous musicians and composers. I hope that clears everything up now, thank you for your time.[12] unsigned comment by Stardust6000 .

Again, this is a site selling a product - the site is using Jackson's name in order to boost sales by association. The site is selling a dream of being able to match a skill of one of the greats of modern music. There is no background or explanation into the site's obtaining of the information you are intent on using. It is not an acceptable source.--I'll bring the food 22:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no source that is good for you is there? You just can't admit that you are wrong on this issue, because there is no source that is going to get more official than the sources I have listed. If you go to the page you will find one of the links that I listed here. There is no such thing as an acceptable link if this is the case. Now please stop trying to find a way to prove me wrong. I have done my share of searching and I have found a vast amount of sources confirming Michael Jackson's very hearable absolute pitch. If you wish to continue to deny any source I put up for you than that is your problem not mine.--Stardust6000 22:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact is, all your sources have been unreliable and did not assert notability. In cases like this the solution is to not say it. In cases of living people it is of vital importance that evidence is reliable and relevant. If we have information that is shaky on subjects of this calibre -- in this case a rich man with lots of lawyers; we put the Wiki in a seriously shaky position. We all have things we don't like on the wiki happen. Do you think I'm happy over 30 people had to be removed from the whistle register cat by hand, by me, because an annoying, precocious 14 year old boy under various aliases put them in after checking it all with a guitar tuner to verify? Do you think I was happy that he thought an E5 from Jessica Simpson was an e6 because the tuner didn't pick up the note properly? Do you think a source from a site selling a self help guide, a psychology health site discussing a music subject and a blog written by what could be ANYONE are all acceptable sources? Really? Seriously?--I'll bring the food 22:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

These sources are very acceptable. You know what, I would like you to provide me with a link that you think would be reliable in your opinion, because it is your opinion that these sites are not reliable. Please, provide me with a link that you see as acceptable. I can find more sources confirming this info if you would like me to find them. You are the only person I have worked with who is so picky with links. Why don't you just remove all of the info on wikipedia, since I can't see how any other link in this encylopedia could meet your idea of a reliable source.--Stardust6000 22:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heads Up

Hi

Nice job on Jacko page. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  22:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Jackson Article

Get over yourself, who do you think you are? I am sick and tired of your rude and repulsive attitude. I wouldn't put anything into an article that doesn't have sources backing it up. Michael Jackson himself stated that the worldwide sales of Thriller stands at 60 million. That Guinness estimate is old. On Wikipedia people should work together as a team, as well as treat other team members with respect. So stop being a know it all and jumping to conclusions.[13]--Stardust6000 13:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Jackson also says he's only had 2 nosejobs. I rest my case completely.--I'll bring the food 23:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you know more about Michael Jackson and his record sales than he or Epic records does. So, good for you, oh mighty lord of knowledge.--Stardust6000 00:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Jackson

Hi. I wonder if the person appeared in "South Park's" "The Jeffersons" is not Michael Jackson then who it is? :) If it's Mike, then I think it's worth of inserting to the article --Brand спойт 02:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a real person, it is a cartoon made on a computer. The actual voice is not him either, and is displayed no doubt in the credits.--I'll bring the food 02:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsigned discussion with Jaiwills and notice of his blocking to me from an administrator.

[edit] Famous Singers

Oh, excuse me! I didn't know that original thought was not allowed on this site! Well then, go ahead and delete it, for all I care! It's obvious that I am just wasting my time trying to enlighten you people with my contributions. BTW, the famous singers list wasn't even my idea, I simply added to it. Bloody hell!-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaiwills (talk • contribs) .

I'm sure the list is good and includes interesting information, it's just that the information is not based upon a source, it's based upon your own observations. We're not allowed to do that because we end up with over the top articles about things which don't exist, bands that aren't notable and random physics theories which don't really make sense. It is not personal. Although i take continual reinsertions of the list which cause me to have to delete it again and again personally.--I'll bring the food 02:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knock yourself out, pal

When have I reinserted the list continuously?-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaiwills (talk • contribs) .

I deleted the lists from several articles and magically, they all reappeared. Some with only your edits after my last removal. So do tell me exactly which other phantom tessitura calculator is in operation under your account?--I'll bring the food 23:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piss off!

I have no idea what you are talking about! You're just a fucking liar! Stop harassing me! Go vandalize someone else's talk page!-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaiwills (talk • contribs) .

[edit] You're the one who's being abusive, wiseass!

I never asked you to bother me with your insulting messages - and I really could care less about you and your crappy tessitura lists. Now, for the last time, go away!-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaiwills (talk • contribs) .

[edit] You should learn to follow your own advice, bub....

Seriously!-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaiwills (talk • contribs) .

[edit] I've read your stupid template!

Now leave me alone! You are harassing me!-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaiwills (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Deleting messages from talk pages

Hi, I've blocked Jaiwills because of his personal attacks above. I thought I should also point out that the convention on Wikipedia is that a user can remove messages from his talk page if he wants -- it just reflects badly on that user. Further, to try and force those messages back onto the user's talk page against his or her wishes is often viewed as harassment. — Matt Crypto 11:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

reinstating warnings is not harrassment. The user has deleted several from their own page. Not just ones i placed there, either. -I'll bring the food 06:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Many in the community view would view it as as harassment, and people have been blocked for such. It's not a good sign if someone removes warnings unheeded, of course, but it is normally understood that someone has the user has the final say over what stays on their talk page, and, further, there is nothing to be gained in adding them a second time. — Matt Crypto 23:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Deleting warnings from your user page causes other people A) to not know you have been warned, B) stops people from incrementing those warnings upon further breaches and C) Interferes with the Vandal Proof tool's ability to find previous warnings on the page and warn the user appropriately. The user has the right to archive such warnings but deleting them with no clear way to find them and using the minor edit tick box is highly inappropriate.--I'll bring the food 20:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
"Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, aside from removal of internal spam, or deleting entire sections of talk pages, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors."--I'll bring the food 20:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Twit?"

Just so that you know, I was reverting vandalism on the page. There is no way on this earth I could have known that you'd submit an edit in the time that it took me to revert the vandalism, and I take extreme exception to being called a "twit" for no reason. Please note that personal attacks in edit summaries are particularly frowned upon by the community. It's also worth noting that this sort of thing happens from time to time, it's not deliberate, and yes, it's frustrating. It doesn't warrant namecalling though.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Crimsone 21:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The comment is aimed at the anon vandal, as i had no way to know you would suddenly come in and edit at the same time. --I'll bring the food 21:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, no problem with me then. I sincerely apologise for my incorrect assumtion that the comment was aimed at me (being the previous editor). However, it is still a personal attack in an edit summary, regardless of it being aimed at a vandal. A personal attack is a personal attack whoever it's aimed at - still it's only an NPA2, so nothing to worry about on it's own. Crimsone 22:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually it's only against the rules to attack a contributor. A vandal doesn't count. At all. Even the little warped ones who like to add anon information about the whistle register to random talk pages and pretend to be their own relatives using sockpuppet accounts.--I'll bring the food 22:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I must confess, I've never heared of that rule before - it certainly isn't part of the personal attacks policy. In fact, it says "It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia. Personal attacks against any user - regardless of his/her past behavior - are contrary to this spirit.". A vandal is stil a contributor, even if they only contribute vandalism. Most IP's are dynamic, and so it could be an entirely different person that get's that comment. Apart from that, it's in the edit summary for all to see forevermore - it's negative in by its existance, and so very much against the wiki spirit. A great number of vandal fighters on wiki encounter vandals every day, but they don't throw personal attacks aroung article histories.
It's worth considering for a moment that sometimes vandals do become contributors of facts and good articles, rather than of vandalism. The vagueness of the line that would need to be drawn is the very reason that, to the best of my knowledge, the line isn't drawn. Crimsone 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael J

Just to let you know, there were some more free pics of Jacko here [14]. I initially added some cropped ones to the article of Jackson with the child actor but took them out for possible legal issues (fans would have soon taken them out anyway). Arniep 00:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)