User talk:Gyrofrog/2010Jan-Jun

This is the archive of comments added to User talk:Gyrofrog from January 2010 through June 2010. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

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

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21
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 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
Gyrofrog: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.121.228 (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.121.228 (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Left response at User talk:129.98.121.228. -- Gyrofrog 19:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Somali clans
I finally found the time to go through some of my results from JSTOR related to this sinkhole of a category, & added a bit of information to Dhulbahante. Have a look & let me know if this is closer to what we'd all like to see. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Left response at User talk:Llywrch. -- Gyrofrog 23:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Jazz bot
Go ahead I simply added the banner to some category talk pages; I have no intention of working on the article talk namespace as well. Thanks for your alert, though. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Any objection to moving Jazz-music-project to WikiProject Jazz ? Standard banner names helps other bots recognize other-project-banners. – xeno talk 16:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Left response at User talk:Xeno. -- Gyrofrog 17:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure how bothered you are about the size of category:Unassessed Jazz articles, but one possible way to bring it down is to assess as stub articles below a certain size (say, less than 2500 bytes). Let me know if you are interested in doing this. – xeno talk 18:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Left response at User talk:Xeno. -- Gyrofrog 19:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * auto=length task is Let me know if you see any issues... – xeno talk  17:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

somali people section
i think it better not to have these images as these people don't represent what the overwhelming population look like and the qulaity of these images don't reach wikepdia standards and unnessary for this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiplayer13 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Left response at User talk:Wikiplayer13. -- Gyrofrog 22:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Underway Regarding DC Meetup #10

 * You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
 * Please be advised that planning is now underway (see here) for DC Meetup #10. --NBahn (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at 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) 21:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Some suggestions for User:Gyrofrog/Penguin Core Collection
A few direct links: I've never read the Penguin Guide but am a bit surprised at some elements - for example, they've got my personal favourite Ornette Coleman LPs but probably not what most people would have chosen; no Unit Structures; a lot of Air LPs but no Art Ensemble. AllyD (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * David Murray (saxophonist)
 * Dave Douglas (trumpeter)
 * Charlie Parker on Dial
 * Bird: The Complete Charlie Parker on Verve
 * Also Bill Evans - The Complete Village Vanguard Recordings, 1961. There's also an awful lot of duplication between different variants of the Hot 5/7s - maybe worth some form of rollup? AllyD (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Left response at User talk:AllyD. -- Gyrofrog 18:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Jajouka/Joujouka
Hello! I saw your message on ANI and wanted to drop you a line in regard to this situation. I was aware of that situation a few years ago when Faysal attempted to mediate the series of edit wars, COI issues, and POV-pushing, but never got directly involved. I just recently edited some of those articles (my interest lies mostly in the Burroughs connection, which is extensive) and refreshed my memory as to that whole morass. I am sad to see it might become a problem again. I am willing to help, as I can, if help is needed. Cheers. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 02:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Bachir is clearly not getting the message. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 16:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ogaden National Liberation Front
Can you take a look at Talk:Ogaden National Liberation Front and see if you have anything to add. Thanks. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 15:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus edits to Circumcision
Looking way back in circumcision's discussion I found two important edits I would like you to consider implementing.

For years, the second sentence in the first paragraph of the introduction read: "The frenulum may also be cut away at the same time, in a procedure called a frenectomy." Please see the discussion archives for the consensus to include the sentence: [] [].

In Circumcision on Complications on meatal stenosis (existing text in quotes, suggested text below), at a minimum, please update the incorrect Medscape link. The correct link is http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1016016-overview.

"One study looking at 354,297 births in Washington State from 1987-1996 found that immediate post-birth complications occurred at a rate of 0.2% in the circumcised babies and at a rate of 0.01% in the uncircumcised babies. The authors judged that this was a conservative estimate because it did not capture the very rare but serious delayed complications associated with circumcisions (e.g., necrotizing fasciitis, cellulitis,) and the less serious but more common complications such as the circumcision scar or a less than ideal cosmetic result. They also stated that the risks of circumcision "do not seem to be mitigated by the hands of more experienced physicians".[138]

Meatal stenosis (a narrowing of the urethral opening) may be a longer-term complication of circumcision. It is thought that because the foreskin no longer protects the meatus, ammonia formed from urine in wet diapers irritates and inflames the exposed urethral opening. Meatal stenosis can lead to discomfort with urination, incontinence, bleeding after urination and urinary tract infections.[139][140][141]"

In the first quoted paragraph above, please add meatal stenosis to the list of "...less serious but more common complications such as circumcision scar, or a less than ideal cosmetic result" to read ...less serious but more common complications such as the circumcision scar, less than ideal cosmetic result, and meatal stenosis.

The next paragraph was discussed, but I couldn't find any consensus. I found the paragraph below best, because it gives a well sourced range on incidence, and notes meatotomy as the standard treatment. Implicitly, meatotomy should be considered a complication of circumcision. The range is very wide because there is no precise definition of stenosis (what degree of narrowing is a functional problem?).

Meatal stenosis (narrowing of the urethral opening) is a relatively common acquired condition occurring in 7-22% of males two years on average after being circumcised. It is thought that because the foreskin no longer protects the meatus, friction and ammonia formed from urine in wet diapers irritates and inflames the exposed urethral opening. This narrowing can lead to discomfort with urination, incontinence, bleeding after urination, and urinary tract infections. Meatal stenosis can lead to discomfort with urination, incontinence, bleeding after urination and urinary tract infections. Symptomatic meatal stenosis is generally alleviated with surgical meatotomy.[][][][].Zinbarg (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the mental images. Left response at User talk:Zinbarg. -- Gyrofrog 17:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Mental images" doesn't make any sense. I thought I was following the advise on the protected tag.  I can understand your concern regarding changing meatal stenosis.  So I added some of the existing text back to the suggested meatal stenosis paragraph above.
 * Did you read the existing discussion regarding the second sentence in the intro? There was a clear consensus to continue to include that sentence.  There doesn't seem to be any ongoing discussion.  Here are links to those discussions:[][]Zinbarg (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Left response at User talk:Zinbarg. -- Gyrofrog 23:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please fix the url for the emedicine.medscape link to source information presented in Complications/meatal stenosis[][]. The correct link is http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1016016-overviewZinbarg (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I read more of the edit guidelines, and I guess there is (crazy) discussion. Sorry to bother you.Zinbarg (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: NPOV & Elections in Ethiopia
I knew this would become a contentious subject, but for some reason Elections in Ethiopia wasn't on my watchlist; now it is. I'll try to help out & keep the pro-Woyane faction from taking over this & related articles. -- llywrch (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it so often the case that sockpuppets are like cockroaches: when you see one, you know there are many times more of them? -- llywrch (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Harassment
Gyrofrog,

I am being continuously harassed by a current admin named User:Killervogel5. He started abusing his admin privileges for personal reasons and when I proved him wrong, he's taken to harassing me on my talk page. I need your help.

Thanks, --JaMikePA (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Left response at User talk:JaMikePA. -- Gyrofrog 15:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your input. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  15:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is that he keeps coming back to my user page to further a discussion I have zero interest in continuing. For him to keep posting messages to draw me back into his argument is harassment. Also, to threaten a user right off the bat when you cannot even prove what he/she did was wrong is an abuse of admin privileges. Killervogel's quoting of WP:Access has nothing to do with userboxes.--JaMikePA (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Meetup/DC_10
Check out the new things that the Smithsonian is offering us! Sadads (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it possible for you to firm up your dinner plans? We would like to include you in our reservation count. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)