User talk:I'll bring the food: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:01, 3 December 2006

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page, SIGN YOUR POSTS (with four tildes: ~~~~),
or hit the button that looks like this [1] above the text entry box and use headlines when starting new topics. Thank you.

Hi, leave your name and number after the tone and I'll get back to you.

--I'll bring the food 16:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure you read WP:LIVING, which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." This is important and many people posting on my Wiki page recently don't know about it--I'll bring the food 17:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Answerphone is yellow.

Archived talk page.

The talk page has been archived and is available for viewing on the right, the history on this page is still viewable should you wish to see the history of those comments being posted to this page. I'll have to look at Werdnabot as an option at some point. --I'll bring the food 17:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appoligize accepted

I can tell you that sometimes it's difficult to tell those doing honest work from those doing something else. Always work in WP:Good faith, when deperate ask for help. There are few options when mostly one works alone. Also try Sun Tzu's The Art of War. --meatclerk 21:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salmon

Just to let you know, I've moved your latest entry to the talkpage. I cannot verify that statement, although I have been looking for something like that. If you can point me to a citation, of worth, I'll be happy to reinsert it for you. If however, you'd like to discuss the matter this link to the talkpage would be a good place to start. --meatclerk 22:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I suspect as much with the coloring of farm-raised fish (salmon, trout, etc.), but have been unable to find a citation. --meatclerk 23:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh no worry, it comes from: Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition on the use of canthaxanthin in feedingstuffs for salmon and trout, laying hens, and other poultry. By the EUROPEAN COMMISSION - HEALTH & CONSUMER PROTECTION DIRECTORATE [link http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scan/out81_en.pdf]. Retrieved on 13th November 2006 the entire paragraph is based on information from there. If you click the little [1] at the end of the paragraph it will take you to the citation.--I'll bring the food 21:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Just thought I'd say hi. I'm weird.

71.107.40.181 05:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

It is completely unacceptable to give someone a barnstar that says, "In a sea of many other completely retarded wackjob contributors..." Please stop using barnstars and edit summaries to make personal attacks against others. If you keep doing this, you will be blocked. --Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

who was i making an attack against? And why have you edited my comment? I believe it is against policy on wikipedia to do that.--I'll bring the food 21:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refering to the other editors on that article as "retarded wackjobs" is an unacceptable attack and it concerns me greatly that you don't understand that. Another administrator reviewed and concurred with my opinion prior to my commenting here. Refactoring personal attacks is not against any policy on Wikipedia. In fact, the NPA policy, the arbitration committee and the essay, refactoring of personal attacks, all allow some latitude in removing personal attacks. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it says many others, it doesn't specify who so it isn't a personal attack. I have no problem refraining from it though, i will simply report and ask for mediation with people who continually ruin articles, annoying me from now on.--I'll bring the food 19:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 05:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and the pages in question are apparently gone, making this moot. CleffedUp 06:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite simple, 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 16:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please just die!

I'm really not interested in reading your crap! Don't you EVER post anything on my talk page again!!

@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 ::It is quite simple, 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.--[[User:I'll bring the food|I&#39;ll bring the food]] 16:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
+== Will you please just die! ==
+I'm really not interested in reading your crap!  Don't you EVER post anything on my talk page again!!