User talk:Spanghew2fs

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. At least one of your edits on the page Jeff, while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sahaib (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I thought I had, when I wrote that I put the more common name "Jeffrey" first, and then the less common "Jefferson." It is entirely typical to list things by order of commonness. I'm not sure how that could possibly be construed as "vandalism," esp. since it does not seem to fit any of the criteria listed in the article on that topic (linked above).

So I am a bit confused as to what more explanation could make it more clear: it was a minor edit, changing the order of two names to reflect the common practice of going from most to least common. No content was changed.

I fail to see how that could POSSIBLY be misconstrued as vandalism. Spanghew2fs (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Spanghew2fs:, you provided no sources that say which name is more common. Also alphabetical order is a more common practice than most to least common. Sahaib (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Uh-huh. I will note that the article on Jeffrey (name) contains an unsupported assertion regarding the relative popularity of the name in and outside of North America. Better redact that.

And your statement re alpha order vs. most/least is also unsupported.

But what the hell, for the record, in English-speaking nations: in the US: <https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/babyname.cgi> shows Jeffrey more popular than Jefferson by 300-400 positions. For the UK <https://www.ukbabynames.com/boys/> shows Jeffrey in the 1000s out of 4608, while Jefferson does not show up. And, not to neglect the Australians, <https://forebears.io/australia/forenames> puts Jeffrey at 343 of 1000. Jefferson again does not place.

Thank you for your deeply informative series of comments.

This has been most enjoyable.

Have a wonderful day, if indeed you can find sources to verify whether the day is actually "wonderful." Spanghew2fs (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Mickey (Toni Basil song). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 21:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The statement re "two octaves" is FACTUALLY INCORRECT.

The statement I made takes the common, understood definition of "an octave" and "a whole step" and applies it to the facts presented elsewhere in the article regarding the range of Basil's vocal on this track.

This is not "original material" or "novel synthesis" any more than adding 2+2 and coming up with 4 is.

Note in the "novel synthesis" article you link to, the following:

"Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible. See also Category:Conversion templates.

Mathematical literacy may be necessary to follow a "routine" calculation, particularly for articles on mathematics or in the hard sciences. In some cases, editors may show their work in a footnote."

Adding 8 (the number of scale degrees in an octave) to 1 (the number of scale degrees in a whole step) and coming up with 9 is "basic arithmetic." Using the term "ninth" is simply applying the adjectival form of the number 9, which is where the musical term comes from.

Note that DERIVING a range from the lowest note appearing in a score to the highest note appearing in a score (which many Wikipedia articles on songs do—for some reason, I do not understand the obsession with vocal range...) is *exactly what I did*. The score does not SAY "range of two octaves." That is a mathematical derivation arrived at by subtracting the "3" designating the octave range of the lowest note (B3) from the "5" designating the octave range of the highest note (C#5).

But that derivation is false. It is a misleading approximation much like someone claiming that since so-and-so was born in 1979 (the 1970s), they were "in their forties" in 2011 (the 2010s)...since if you subtract 1970 from 2010 you get 40. Or concluding that someone who was 3'9" at age 8 and 6'1" at age 21 had grown "three feet"...for that matter, that they had done so in "twenty years."

"Two octaves" is, in other words, a ROUNDING ERROR.

My version is more accurate and relies only upon common understanding of what a term like "B3" actually means, and how notes in the musical scale work. Spanghew2fs (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)