User talk:Gyrofrog

If you are looking for a discussion that is no longer here, please check the archives.

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

Wikipedia Day NYC

Wikipedia 9th birthday coin

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

The Somali language websites need to be considered reliable sources for the Somali language related entries in Wikipedia.

There are main events and personalities which don't appear in English language at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treadeasily (talk • contribs) 19:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Left response at User talk:Treadeasily. -- Gyrofrog 20:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark Bellinghaus

Thanks and good work on the SPI. Ty 23:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

De-prod Progressive jazz

I have removed the dated prod tag you placed on the article Progressive jazz and instead turned the page into a disambiguation page. I agree that the term is vague, but it does seem to be used by comparatively reliable sources (albeit in inconsistent ways). If you find this solution unacceptable, you may want to bring the page to AfD. Cnilep (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Left response at User talk:Cnilep. -- Gyrofrog 19:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Tizita

Thanks for cleaning up the Tizita page.

Canton japan (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You're invited to Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia

You're invited to the
Wiki Takes Philadelphia
April 11, 2010
Time: 12 pm
Location: Drexel Quad (33rd and Market)
University City, Philadelphia

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia is a photo scavenger hunt and free content photography contest to be held all around Philadelphia aimed at illustrating Wikipedia articles.

Scheduled for Sunday, April 11, 2010, the check-in location will be at the Drexel University quad (between Chestnut and Market, 33rd and 32nd) at noon, and the ending party and photo uploading (location to be announced) will be at 6 PM. To reach the Drexel quad, walk south from Market Street at 32nd Street into the campus.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 21st, Columbia University area Last: 11/15/2009

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis on Darod and Isaaq

Hi Gyrofrog. There is a rather passionate user on the Darod and Isaaq articles who keeps adding some pretty obvious synthesis and original research. I have already explained to him in some detail what he is doing wrong on both articles' talk pages (1, 2), citing direct passages from the very studies he himself is quoting from. However, he does not seem to be open to reason. CambridgeBayWeather already had a word with him about this, but it does not seem to have had an effect either. When you have the time, can you please have a look at my posts on the respective articles' talk pages and decide what's best? Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. But what I meant was, if you agree that the material is synthesis (which it clearly is), could you please restore the pages back to their original versions? I'm at three reverts so I can't do it myself. I've left a detailed explanation on the Darod talk page in particular where I've quoted both the user's own edits & explained why they constitute synthesis and are not supported by the sources he cites (which I've also quoted). Best, Middayexpress (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue is simple. The user claims that the two studies linked to below support his claim that the Darod & Isaaq have no legitimate claims to an Arab provenance (which is the thrust of his argument). However, the studies themselves:

• Clearly indicate that there has been much contact with Arab populations. Example:

• Study 1:

"East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. Investigations of Y chromosome markers have shown that the East African populations were not significantly affected by the east bound Bantu expansion that took place approximately 3500 years ago, while a significant contact to Arab and Middle East populations can be deduced from the present distribution of the Y chromosomes in these areas."

• Study 2 (this is ironically the study's own title):

"Y-chromosomal STR haplotypes in an Arab population from Somalia"

• But more importantly, neither study mentions anything specifically about the genetics of either the Darod or Isaaq, which is what makes this an obvious instance of synthesis.

I think that's pretty straightforward. I thought I'd come to you first before taking it to the administrator's noticeboard. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Take care, Middayexpress (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Waq

Hi Gyrofrog,

Sounds good to me! It's been a long time since I wrote that stub and I've not been studying East African topics of late; the two terms look like transliteration variants to me so merging seems sensible. Thanks for dropping me a line! babbage (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

SMOOTH JAZZ

Please exercise a modicum of academic integrity in deciding which information to publish, and not react as an automaton.

I find your refusal to accept a legitimate contribution for smooth jazz both confusing and misguided (while you leave in place pure opinion on the subject) . You lose quite a bit credibility when you publish comments that reference non-scholarly work or worse do not reference any citation at all, such as seen in the current description in "Smooth jazz description". In the first paragraph of the current description the author makes a false generalization about the characteristics of "smooth jazz" and offers no citation at all to back up his claim, yet his posting was published.

"In general, a smooth jazz track is downtempo (the most widely played tracks are in the 90–105 BPM range), layering a lead, melody-playing instrument (saxophones – especially soprano and tenor – are the most popular, with guitars a close second) over a backdrop that typically consists of programmed rhythms and various pads and/or samples. Though much of what is played under the banner of the "smooth jazz" radio format contains vocals, music recorded with the intent of categorization as smooth jazz would typically not contain such a vocal track. Rather, the stations in question pull their vocal tracks from the work of artists like Simply Red or Luther Vandross, who are normally considered "soul" or "R&B".

Paragraph two offers a generalization, and what is worse is that it's a derogatory generalization, while citing a questionable source. And indeed the source is not a credible source because the source's intention is to derogate the entire genre. Further if you follow the citation to its original source, you quickly see that the reference is a gross misinterpretation of the original authors intent. And again, it's not a scholarly source. Here's what it says:

Although many listeners and record companies group smooth and contemporary jazz together, the genres are different. Smooth jazz is generally considered background music, whereas "straight-ahead" contemporary jazz is seen as demanding the listener's undivided attention.[1]

This statement is not only factually incorrect, but its intention is to state a knowledge about the mindset of the listener (that's right the listener not the genre itself), which is to say that the author was not only content to derogate the art form but its followers as well. I have not found any source, credible or otherwise, that makes this assertion. But even if there were a scholarly source on the subject of thought processes, it would have to be from a neurology source not a random non-academic website proclaiming itself an authority on "smooth jazz", which uses pure conjecture as its basis for its so-called objective assertions. Your lack of a rigorous skepticism of which websites are credible sources does little more than promote misinformation.

On a more ostensible point, the current Wikipedia description of "smooth jazz" chooses to narrowly define a genre of music that easily contains thousands of musicians and artists. Common sense should dictate to you that within the broad range of artists that make up the smooth jazz genre there is diversity. Yet you allow a generalization that is extremely narrow in its description. In fact the posting asserts that the genre does not use drummers, but rather drum machines. That will come as quite a shock to the drummers you have listed on the List of Smooth Jazz musicians Drummer and other percussionists:

• Steve Gadd
• Alphonse Mouzon ( between 1980 and 1998 )
• Leonard Gibbs
• Omar Hakim
• Harvey Mason
• Tonéx (vocalist)
• Vinnie Colaiuta

I'm a professional jazz musician. I can't begin to tell you how unsophisticated Wikipedia's appears with its use of the current "smooth jazz" description. I find it particularly offensive that Wikipedia would allow verbal derogatory assaults against an entire genre of music. Descriptions of art forms should avoid judgment and stereotyping. If Wikipedia chooses to strengthen its credibility and broaden its range of users, I suggest you rethink your position on deciding which posts to maintain and which to reject. I'm also a medical student; and there is a debate among physicians and physicians in training on whether or not to use Wikipedia as a source for information. So when you are given the reins of power for deciding which information is published and which is not, you better make sure you're on the right side of this argument with respect to accuracy. I will make no further posts in you publication and, given your level of peer review and devotion to accuracy, I will no longer use Wikipedia as a source for research.

I hope you actually read this; but somehow I doubt you have the academic exposure to understand its ramification; simply stated, if Wikipedia is not careful, it will soon be (if not already so) an unreliable source for highly questionable trivia.