User talk:Aempinc

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! Rockpocket (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Pitch[edit]

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. The links you added to the page perfect pitch have been removed. Please do not add commercial links—or links to your own private websites—to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Rockpocket (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gary. I reverted your additions because it is against policy to create a disambiguation to accommodate a page outside Wikipedia namespace. Should you consider your product notable enough (see WP:N) for its own article in Wikipedia (Perfect pitch (training course) for example), then please feel free to make it, then you may disambiguate perfect pitch to that. I would be suprised if the product was notable enough, but you may be able to justify it. Let me know if i can be of further assistance, but please beware of simply adding links to your commercial webpage on other articles, as its considered linkspam. Thanks. Rockpocket (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sherri. I hadn't noticed the various links at the bottom of the absolute pitch article. It wasn't I that removed these links, but i'll see what i can do. I think you have a fair point about your competitor. The bottom link is permitted [1] as it is a published article. However, you are correct that the top link is commercial. In this article there may be an argument for allowing commerical links, as the article does discuss the sort of courses you both offer. I'll leave a note for the reverting editor and make sure that, whatever is decided, it is consistant. Rockpocket (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, you are correct in your assertion that the name of your article will have to be something like Perfect Pitch (training course), but the perfect pitch article will then provide a link to both your course and the absolute pitch article (just as you did before, but not including your external link, this time). Even being the top course, does not necessarily mean it is notable enough for wikipedia. I expect you will probably be fine, however should anyone disagree another editor may propose it for deletion at any time, then the community will decide. Do read WP:V and make sure that you cite reliable sources for any claims you make. I have left a note for the editor about your competitor's link. I will follow up with him and make sure both or neither are mentioned. I'll also keep an eye of any article you choose to make and help you wikify it, should you need help. Feel free to ask. Rockpocket (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that there has been a recent discussion about commercial links in the talk page [2]. I see your competitor has contributed there and some propositions have been floated. Perhaps you could comment there yourself to come to some compromise (also make sure you type four tildes: " ~~~~ " after you post, to sign your name). Rockpocket (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Aempinc: In your justification for changing my edits to the Absolute Pitch entry, you say that my edits reflected only the opinion of one researcher. Specifically, in my edit about the Ohio State and U of Calgary articles, you claim that it was the "opinion of one researcher" only that these do not support the claims made by David L. Burge. In fact, it is not just my opinion, but the opinion of the broader scientific community: neither of these papers was ever published in a peer-review journal, and so are not considered acceptable evidence in the scientific community. In other scientific entries, WP holds peer-review as a standard of proof, there is no reason that this entry should be any different. Daniel Levitin

Categorization[edit]

You're welcome, I've added some more categories. Don't forget to sign your name (use ~~~~ for this). Conscious 16:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add [[Category:People with absolute pitch]] anywhere in the article, preferably in the end. More information is available at Help:Category. Conscious 17:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Pitch[edit]

Hello. Thanks for your message. As requested, I formated the references in the nature and nurture section. One of the sources was missing a date, but that can easily be added in if it is found. Rockpocket 22:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, i'm a volunteer (or addict, some might say!) I cleaned up the perfect pitch disambiguation as per WP:MoS. I removed the trademark reference as disambigs are not information pages, only for direction. Should you wish to elaborate about the training method, feel free to do so in the David Lucas Burge article.

One thing, however. When you introduce a disambiguation page, it is expected that you find all the links that previously linked to the absolute pitch article when it was under perfect pitch and redirect them to its new home. I did this with about half of them, but there are still some remaining, should you wish to redirect them. If you click on the "what links here" text in the Perfect pitch page tool box (on the left of your screen) [3] you will see a list of pages that link to the perfect pitch disambig page. These links, at least the ones in proper articles, now need to point to absolute pitch (the links on talk pages can remain). To do this go to each page, find the link and replace [[perfect pitch]] with [[absolute pitch|perfect pitch]]. Should you not get the chance to do this, i will try and change the rest when i get an opportunity. Rockpocket 06:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Sorry to hear you are having problems with some other editors. Let me address each of the individuals independently.

Firstly the David Lucas Burge listing. Pretty much anyone can list an article for deletion at any time. It is up to the community to form a consensus over whether it should be deleted or not, based on wikipedia policy. In this case, the policies would be WP:BIO, WP:CORP andWP:MUSIC. I don't know if Burge is notable enough to be included by these criteria, but i would think he might be. Part of the problem is that article itself does not provide evidence for notability or many claims beyond his product. I would suggest a few things. First of all make your case on this page by voting keep followed by your justification. It would help if you could find some criterion in the above policies that he meets (and provide proof), this would give you a very good case. Secondly if you could expand the article to explain how notable he is with verifiable sources, that might help also. After a week or so, an administrator will make the decision based upon the evidence provided and the opinions voiced.

Regarding the ChrisGriswold profanity. I noticed that myself and expressed my disaproval to him. He accepted it was a bad choice of words and that he should not have left that summary. I don't think it is that he doesn't believe the trademark, its just that most Wikipedia articles do not mention them and certainly not in such an explicit way. I do not now whether there is any specific policy on trademarks, you could always engage him on his talkpage to ask about it. Alternatively, if you expand the article, you could work in a mention of the trademark somewhere there within context.

Regarding the nature vs nurture debate on the absolute talk page. Its difficult for me to give any informed comment on the content itself, as i know little about the field. However, i have to agree with Daniel Levitin on one point. According to Wikipedia policy WP:V, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Therefore it really doesn't matter who is correct in their interpretation of the data if the source does not meet WP:RS standards. It would appear the issue of contention is data from a few PhD theses. These tend not to be acceptable as verifiable sources by themselves, as they are not peer reviewed or published (to the same standards as academic journals, at least). Therefore if these are your only primary sources, then i would think you are not going to to succeed in keeping them in. If there are peer reviewed sources for that content, then you have a much better case. I understand that this is frustrating - i find the "verifiable not truth" issue difficult to reconcile myself - but it is how Wikipedia works, i'm afraid. My only suggestion, if you cannot come to some consensus with these editors, would we to file a request for comment to gauge the opinion of other editors. If there is still not agreement, a request from mediation could also be filed.

I'm sorry i haven't been as helpful as you would, i'm sure, like. Unfortunatley i don't have all the answers, and even if i did, it is not my decision to make. The community must decide. Your major weapon in convincing the community is in WP:POLICY - if you can find justifications for keping your content in there then there is little people can do to remove it. I would urge you not to leave wikipedia over this, instead have a read of the policies and see what is appropriate and what is not appropriate for inclusion, then quote the appropriate policy when adding it. I'll keep an eye on the page to see what transpires. Rockpocket 06:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]