User talk:Gwickwire

Please Note: I will reply to your posts on this page, unless you tell me otherwise. Please remain civil and polite here. Thanks, and have a good day.

User:Gwickwire/Status Helpful links: I declined your AfC submission, I declined your Edit Request

If you're a new or unregistered user, sorry, but due to some issues you can't edit this now. Please click here to leave me a message. Sorry for the inconvenience. gwickwire^talk_editing 22:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement re User:Kevin

In the heat of the moment, I made accusations against User:Kevin that were inappropriate, and without any evidence to support them. I'd like to apologize to him for anything this may have caused, and also apologize to everyone else that I made these accusations. I understand that it was wrong to make these unfounded accusations. I was wrong here. gwickwire^talk_editing 19:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked

Hi Gwickwire. Following our email discussions, I am convinced that you understand the problems with your behaviour over the past few days, and have therefore unblocked you. I recommend you keep away from the areas where trouble occured and posting a statement like the one you suggested would be a positive thing. Worm^TT(talk) 19:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think it would be an excellent idea to take the blog which you created down, as it only aggrevates the situation. Worm^TT(talk) 19:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

• From the editor: Signpost–Wikizine merger

• News and notes: Finance committee updates

• Featured content: Batman, three birds and a Mercedes

• Arbitration report: Doncram case closes; arbitrator resigns

• WikiProject report: Setting a precedent

• Technology report: Article Feedback reversal

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:NGC 6357

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:NGC 6357. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a test

User talk This is a test: You're really cool! Thanks for all your help and feedback! Copeland.powell (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse TB

Hi there. Please remember to add Teahouse talkback messages to new users' talk pages after responding to their questions at the Teahouse. This is because new users may not be aware that their questions have been answered at the Teahouse or may not check the Teahouse after asking their questions. You even have the teahouseTalkback script enabled which makes the process easier. Thanks. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 06:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Re-edited Page

Hi Gwickwire,

I recently fixed my page based on the edits you recommended. Can you please take a look at my current page and let me know if you can accept it? Thank you so much!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Native_American_Languages_of_Arizona

---

Subbupedia95 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subbupedia95 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Auto-confirmed status--thanks

Thanks for the Help on Auto-confirmed status on my talk page. Mathglot (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That errant AfC notice you got...

was because the AfC submission template got bollixed up here. I am manually giving the AfC submission another review/Decline and getting the notice to the correct editor. Shearonink (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw, it's fine. I just forgot to change the nick after submitting for someone on IRC -en-help most likely. Thanks though! gwickwire^talk_editing 16:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

eComPress Software

Hi

Thanks for your Wiki work - I realize it is volunteer and time consuming.

I resubmitted my article on eComPress Digital Publishing software in line with your suggestions, i.e.:

- totally non-commercial information ... there is zero marketing or sales hype, simple facts on the product

- added 4 highly credible 3rd party reference links -- these are SMES that have reviewed the technology without commercial bias or motivation

My personal interest is to share this relatively unknown technology with others like myself who work in digital publishing, where inexpensive software remains rare.

Thanks

Jeff Reid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreid52 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello

A bit delayed, but I did want to thank you for your comments on my talk recently. I really appreciated the "give the guy a chance to respond" thing. TY for that. Good to see you about, stop by any time. — Ched :  ?  15:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Laura Branigan's vocal range

Gwickwire, it appears that you yourself have demonstrated a lack of common sense as well. What is the point of "verifiability" if the source states factually inaccurate information? What is the purpose of Wikipedia other than the verification of factually inaccurate information if we cannot question it?

I am a fighter against inaccuracy, and the inclusion of Laura Branigan's name on the list of Sopranos is an inaccuracy. As I said before, common sense dictates that just because something is verifiable doesn't automatically make it accurate enough to warrant inclusion, let alone emphasis. Too many people hastily cite the first thing they read without questioning its accuracy. That is why original research is essential. While reliable sources are indeed a necessary condition for asserting something, they are not a sufficient condition by themselves. And while "truth" may not be 100% sufficient, it is completely necessary.

The only reason Laura Branigan's name was added to the list of Sopranos was because the editor responsible took the word of the New York Times as gospel without questioning such and without researching the facts about human vocal ranges. I questioned such and found the right answer.

Original research is the only way to find facts when your "verifiable sources" don't state the true facts. Your policy against such seems to be encouraging carelessness in Wikipedia readers and editors, which makes you part of the problem of inaccuracy. I don't know about you or them, but I do not accept the word of even an allegedly "verifiable" source on pure authority alone. I was taught to question everything.

You (and Liz) may believe that original research will invite chaos due to everyone having different opinions, but the bottom line is that facts are facts. Laura Branigan's voice exhibited *none* of the established, factual characteristics of a Soprano vocalist; just because the New York Times claims that she was a Soprano does not make it true. Your lack of logic and common sense is preventing you (and Liz, for that matter) from thinking realistically on this matter.

Many people don't understand the precise criteria of classification when it comes to classifying solo vocalists; they seem to throw the terms "Alto" and "Soprano" around much too loosely (at least in terms of female vocalists), when in reality there are many different criteria used in identifying the vocal range of a solo vocalist--not just the high or low range that they are capable of singing in.

When you listen to Laura's voice and balance such against the factually established characteristics of a true Soprano, you will find that it matches up with *none* of such characteristics. Conversely, when you do the same with the characteristics of a Contralto vocalist, you will find that her voice matches up with *many* of such characteristics. By deductive reasoning, the fact that her voice has more in common with Contraltos means that she was a Contralto, not a Soprano.

The word of a critic who writes for the New York Times does not negate or invalidate the facts in any way. And just because no other "reliable" source states the truth doesn't mean that it is not the truth. You may believe that such sources present the facts 99.9% of the time, but they are human too and make mistakes as well. They are not infallible. In this case, they made a mistake which must be challenged.

I implore you and your staff to realistically look at this situation.68.44.138.213 (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no control by myself over Wikipedia policies. The policies state that you are not allowed to perform original research and put it on Wikipedia. We don't have staff here, we are all volunteers also. You may believe it's not the truth, but until you give us a WP:RS that says something different, we are under no obligation to listen to you. If you continue this path without providing a source, it will be considered disruptive editing and you may be blocked (prevented) from editing. gwickwire^talk_editing 23:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not appreciate being reprimanded, ignored, or threatened as though I am a child. I also do not appreciate the rigidity or the lack of common sense shown by Wikipedia and its volunteers.

I've looked exhaustively for sources, as I've told you, but I have found none. But just because there are none does not mean that the cited sources are by default correct. The New York Times article, as well as the Billboard article, was a reflection of a critic's opinion, nothing more. We are all entitled to our opinions, but facts are facts.

How do you fight against inaccuracy? You question things; you do research; you find the facts. I do not appreciate your accusation that I merely "believe" that the New York Times' assertion is not the truth. I've done research and located the facts, which is something that the authors in the cited sources failed to do (the New York Times and Billboard), as did the person who originally submitted these sources. Applying those facts to Laura Branigan's voice and determining her correct vocal range in the absence of a reliable source is called deductive reasoning. I learned it in school. That your site discourages readers and editors from doing such is a travesty and an insult to our intelligence. I did not endure twelve grades of school only to be told that what I learned there means nothing.

I did not "put my original research on Wikipedia"; I used it on a Talk Page to justify the deletion of a factual inaccuracy. As I said, just because something is verifiable doesn't automatically make it accurate enough to warrant inclusion, let alone emphasis.

My emphatic tone here is nothing more than emphasis; it is not a personal attack. I am simply trying to have a reasonable, civil discussion. Any defensive-sounding words from me are simply that; self-defense. I do not appreciate the threat of you banning me, nor your unwillingness to listen to me.68.44.138.213 (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

One more reply without adhering to policy and I will ask for you to be blocked. You can do your research for yourself. But per policy here we cannot take it to be true. I know it's called deductive reasoning, and I'm quite good at it myself. It's what allows us to formulate our own opinions on things. But Wikipedia doesn't accept your "fact", we accept what is verifiable in reliable sources. If you don't like our "lack of common sense", leave and stop before you get blocked. You clearly haven't read the three policies I've given you links to so many times, or you'd stop. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying we can't take your word for it. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I have indeed read the policies, but I don't agree with them because of their strict rigidity. That is why I question them. If you want me to be reasonable, please do not threaten to ban me or push me aside discourteously. If you wish for me to adhere to Wikipedia's policy in this discussion, I will do so. Moving forward, I will outline the reasons as to why Laura Branigan's name on the Soprano list is questionable--without reference to any original research.

I re-read the article on Identifying Reliable Sources and I came across some information that contradicts what you are telling me here: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Furthermore, "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces."

If that is the case, then the inclusion of Laura Branigan's name on the Soprano list (regardless of my own research) is definitely questionable, given that the cited article was written by a freelance critic who gets paid only to write his opinions. In other words, his assertion was not authoritative and cannot be considered a fact. It can only be attributed to him alone and is not sufficient enough to warrant emphasis on Wikipedia.

Liz previously mentioned that if Stephen Holden's reviews were indeed erroneous, then the Times would have printed a correction, given their alleged stringency. However, according to an article on Wikipedia's Corrections page, "fewer than 2 percent of factually flawed articles in daily newspapers are actually followed by a correction." http://www.slate.com/id/2172283 Not only that, but news sources often do not correct errors unless they are pointed out. It is entirely possible that no one bothered to point out Stephen Holden's inaccuracy.

In reference to the No Original Research policy, it states "when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority." In the case of Laura Branigan's vocal range, the point of view is held only by two sources: a freelance critic from the New York Times and a journalist from Billboard Magazine, both of whom do not seem to have any formal understanding of the mechanics of vocality. Chuck Taylor of Billboard graduated with degrees in journalism and speech/English, while Holden received a Bachelor of Arts degree in English. Though they write opinions about music, they are hardly authoritative sources in the subject of vocality, which means that their opinions must not be treated as authoritative fact.

My point is that Wikipedia's policies are way too rigid and do not allow for error room. This Slate article proves such; even the New York Times is not perfect, which is why I question the citation of Stephen Holden's critical reviews as justification for the inclusion of Laura Branigan's name under the Soprano list.

If Wikipedia does not allow original research, it should make room for error and allow for the deletion of questionable material--even when a reliable source cannot be found--but without original research. Blindly defending a reliable source as infallible helps nothing, given how imperfect those sources can be, not to mention how it contravenes the portions of the policies that I outlined.

I assure you that my behavior here is not indicative of my overall behavior on Wikipedia. It only concerns this particular instance, given the conduct exhibited to me by others. I am not a disruptive editor; only a fighter against inaccuracy. I've pointed out examples from the policies that call into question the veracity of the information in question without any reference to original research. I hope that helps.68.44.138.213 (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not you like them, unless you get them changed, you must adhere to them. You make a lot of "if... then" statements, but I'm talking in the now. On the point of "authoritative sources", as far as Wikipedia concerned, anyone who writes something with editorial oversight (reviews in newspapers are subject to the editorial board of the newspaper) is authoritative, unless a more authoritative (i.e. an academic who publishes his findings in a journal) source is provided. You're confusing "editorial commentary", or what are commonly known as op-eds to some, with critic reviews, which are sometimes even on front pages, and are most definitely subject to the editorial board of the publisher. The rest of those quotes are a moot point because the article referenced is not an opinion piece, but a critic review, making it subject to the editorial board of the company. I'll continue this discussion with you, if you'll do two things: refrain from "policy shouldn't be this way" and only speak of the current policies, and make your statements a wee bit shorter. Thanks :) gwickwire^talk_editing 03:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your willingness to work with me. I will try to keep it shorter. In any event, the critical reviews may have been subjected to the editorial board, but it seems as though the trivially irrelevant subject of vocal range is outside of their purview, given how complex vocal classification is. The current policies do not allow for such consideration. I am positive that other subjects that are not as trivially irrelevant would have been corrected by the editorial boards had there been any such errors, but vocal range doesn't seem to be that important. I mean, would Laura Branigan really have sued the Times for falsely characterizing her vocal range, of all things?

The only reason I've brought this issue up is because I am a vocalist myself who is very passionate about the subject. I used to have a loose, rudimentary understanding of the subject as well...until I did research. That is what tells me that even the editorial boards are not as knowledgeable either. I am only determined to correct the inaccuracies from which I suffered myself. The fact that they are perpetuated by a reliable source only makes my determination stronger, since they have a louder voice than me.68.44.138.213 (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)