Talk:Special information tone/Archive 1

Archive 1

Caller confusion with false SITs

This entire section appears to be an opinion piece whining about why false SITs shouldn't be used. It either needs citations, an opposing viewpoint (e.g. sleazy telemarketers forced people to add false SITs to get them to shut up), or removed entirely. Gregly (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a rather agressive response, Greg. Would you not agree that playing of a false busy signal on an answering machine might confuse a caller? A false ringing signal, perhaps? You're arguing that a first time caller, hearing a false SIT would NOT assume it's real? I'm not really following your logic and would have tough time finding something to support what is prima facie. Perhaps the wording of the section is a bit too paternalistic. How might you phrase a caveat? Or would you prefer that a caveat be cited from somewhere? Lexlex (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

SIT example recordings

Those sound files are slightly incorrect - During transition between tones, there is a fade out, then fade in. Though it is in spec to allow a small space, though that is to keep old analog stystems within spec. Though they are probably within tolerance. Normally tones generated by computers shouldn't have any sort of trasition or space between the tones.

Well anyway the reason I spotted this is that I'm putting up an Asterisk box and was on the lookout for telephone tones and recordings to supplement it. I did try to put IC_SIT on my Asterisk box on a test extension, and listened to it with a phone, and those fading transitions didn't sound quite right. So what I end up doing is making my own sit tone using my own tone generator and the specs posted on the main page. The trick is to get the ends of the waveform of each tone to line up perfectly to that no clicks are induced. They turned out perfect.

Another observation is the volume on these and many of the sound files found on the web are way too loud to be used on an actual phone system. When I first tried IC_SIT on my Asterisk box, is was blasting loud and distorted. I found that about -36db works best, which is somewhat quiet on computer speakers. I also found that I needed to make each tone 5 percent louder that the previous one to make it sound nice and even loudness on the phone. Seems as the lower frequency has lower response or something. 66.114.93.6 (talk) 10:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Good ear! I put in a slight fade to get rid of the click. If you matched up the bands, great. upload them. Let's hear. Lexlex (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Time between segments

This article seems unclear about the specification for the pauses between thr tone segments. In the "International Telecommunication Union definition" section, it says:

Each segment is allowed a duration of 330 ±70 ms with a silent interval of up to 30 ms between segments.

But the "SIT composition" section says:

The interval between the segments of SITs is between 0 and 4 ms.

So, which is it? Is it that the ITU standard allows 0-30 ms, but in practice central office equipment never inserts a pause of more than 4 ms? Or is one of the two quoted statements in this article incorrect? If both are true, this needs to be clarified somehow in the article text.

71.242.6.231 (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I think perhaps the relationship between the ITU standard and the information in the "SIT composition" section needs to be clarified. Reading it (and not being a telecom insider), I only have to assume that the ITU standard is an umbrella under which the other details (two precise tone frequencies for each of the first two segments, for example) are allowed and defined by some other standard (unnamed in the article). I'd rather not assume anything; that's why I consult a reference such as an encyclopedia.

Along with this, I suppose the article needs to cite more references.

71.242.6.231 (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep. What you're seeing are actually two specifications. The ITU spec is very loose and Bellcore (AT&T's Research Arm) developed this standard for use on AT&T equipment. My understanding is that it got adopted by other companies, but I haven't found anything to reference. Lexlex (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Original research/Recorded messages

Details added seemed to be original research (not cited) and listings of recorded messages are not relevant to an article about the SIT tones. Rapido (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this guy means well but doesn't seem to understand the concept of original research. He keeps adding this stuff. He's already been blocked for 3RR somewhere else. We'll see what happens. Lexlex (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried messaging you about this and got no reply. I was blocked unfairly over the 3RR because I made ONE reversal in 3 days, that's not how the 3RR rule works. I think Lexlex does not understand the concept of replying to messages and Rapido does not understand the concept of referencing. The article in question I was blocked over was the Living Next Door To Alice one, where I quite clearly referenced the CDs available and added the track listing. I asked many times how this was not referencing and had no reply. I think you should get your facts right before confronting me over imaginary offences. We all know the sky is blue, do we need a reference to prove it? No! Sometimes common sense, observation and good faith are just as reliable. You think I've done wrong, prove it! --Cexycy (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes you did reply but created another topic on my talk page to answer. In future, just indent and we can continue. The fundamental problem here is personal observation. It does not matter whether you think something is obvious - it's still an opinion. It's still a personal observation and subjective. The wiki model requires a verifiable, trusted source other than the writer. Yes, it can be amazingly frustrating and annoying, but when you have folks with radically different views on hot topics (see circumcision or climate change for a good example) you end up with he said she said morass. There ARE people who are color blind who see they sky as gray, but call it blue. But then they also call dirty dishwater blue. Subjective.

In any case. Your observations and validity are not being challenged. It's just your citing style. Please remember we have all been through this process and understand what you're feeling, it's just that some are more curt than others. Lexlex (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Cexycy wasn't blocked over 3RR, but for edit warring, as he was warned (by an administrator)[1], and did receive advice as to why his edits weren't appropriate [2], but decided to revert back to "his version" included unsourced information, original research and personal opinions, so it was unsurprising that he was blocked. It sounds like hypocrisy to say that I don't understand referencing! Rapido (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said before and as I'll say again, I was referencing a few CDs that were released! That was where the information had come from. Therefore anyone wishing to verify the information can obtain a copy and do it this way, same as with a book or a website. I have asked many times how this can not be classed as referencing and you did not (or should I say could not?) answer. --Cexycy (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's easy, just reference the CD name and ISBN number - you're done! Although, you should really create a page having to do with recordings, the reference probably does not belong on this page. If you need help, please let me know. Lexlex (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Here should be for discussing the edits to this page, not other articles, or for discussing editors... Any personal dispute with me can be discussed here User talk:NJA#Problem with another user in the section that Cexycy has started. Rapido (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to gently bring your attention to the fact that you are not referencing correctly. You can't use some guy's web page as a source - these are not my rules buddy. You have to use published or notable reference. I feel like I'm spoon feeding this to you, what gives? Also, this ain't the place for random information about announcements. Create a page for it. This isn't the place. Lexlex (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Lexlex for threatening me! You and Rapido wanted references, I gave you one and it has STILL been reversed by Rapido. That site gives you a recording (with the SIT) and a number to call so you can hear it yourself. Once again I have been threatened with being blocked for causing a disruption when really it is people like Rapido who can not understand the referencing and you patronising me when I try to help. It's people like you two which make people not want to bother. --Cexycy (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

How does a webpage with various foreign recordings prove the assertions shown in Cexycy's edit? Regardless, it's a self published source, and is so reliable and well researched that it shows the Moldovan recorded message as "2 eastern languages" rather than Romanian and Russian! Also could Cexycy desist from posting to my talk page, I am a bit tired of continuing assumption of bad faith, and what could be considered personal attacks. Rapido (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a good job I'm not using it to prove a point about languages then isn't it? Stick to the point! It's the German one I'm focusing on. --Cexycy (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Cexycy, you have to lose the chip on your shoulder dude. You're just doing it wrong, face it. You are wrong adding information that has no place here. Wrong in how you choose irrelevant information as a "source" and wrong because when you do screw up, rather than taking the help offered you start pissing all over the place that you are somehow being maligned. It's ridiculous. If you are truly an adult, act like one; take the time to find real sources for your adds or go away. You're wasting your time, my time, and many other people's time by screwing around. Just do it right and no one will bother you, but banging your head harder against the wall isn't going to fix the problem. Lexlex (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop swearing at me for a start. Im simply saying the website contains a recording of tbe SIT I am trying to mention, simple, which supports the bit I am trying to add. Yes it is about the SIT and why SITs are useful if callers do not understand the annoucements. How is that nothing to do with the SIT article? And I am an adult. I work hard to find things suitable for inclusion, which I have done. many of the articles I have created ARE notable and remain, despite Rapido's efforts. I am not accepting help from people like Rapido who just try to delete things willy nilly, regardless of subject matter or references. If you take a minute to look at what he has been doing you will understand why I am so annoyed. Rapido is asking me now to desist from posting to his/her talk page, why? Maybe if s/he did not keep going after everything I do trying to revert it or get it deleted I'm sure we would all get on just fine. If references are required, fine, but why reverse the edits even with them? That;s just not right by any stretch of the imagination. --Cexycy (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You're bright enough to figure out how to do this correctly. Just do it, otherwise you're going to keep having problems with deleted adds. Whining about it does you no favors. Lexlex (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let me put it as simple as I can. I added a reference which was a website containing a recording. It is not the best of websites, I grant you, however it is nothing to do with me and nothing to do with Wikipedia so therefore it is an independant 3rd party's source which is backing up what I am saying. Where can you find any "Official" sites which will do this sort of thing? I can't really see a great deal of people beinng interested in the whole article to be honest, so finding verification sources from "official" websites can be very difficult.

Rapido has complained that my additions are not referenced. I placed references in and he STILL removes them. You even told me yourself that inserting a catalogue number would be fine with regards to CDs, so please look at the Living Next Door To Alice article, see the history and tell me what you think. Why can't Rapido use the discussion section like everyone else instead of removing my adds willy nilly? When I ask about this, it's just ignored. He has been told by another administrator not to revert edits without giving a reason but still does it. This is the same user who AFD's album articles on EAV, claiming he thought they were non-notable, when they quite clearly were (and had references).

I do appeciate help when it is offered, however I do not believe that is what has happened. I do not mind things being removed if there is a reason, but if there is no reason and I have referenced my points they should stay. How would you feel if this was happening to you? Not only that, but if the same user keeps popping up on other articles and doing the same, again with references, it can be very annoying.

You're bright enough to understand what I am saying. So please offer some genuine help to sort the problem, without having a go at me. --Cexycy (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Give up fighting with them and contribute elsewhere? 118.100.122.186 (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

-- MOVING THIS THREAD TO YOUR TALK PAGE --Lexlex (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Abolished in Germany

At least in Germany, these tones have been abolished in recent years (no, I got no citation... the only citation is my telephone handset ;-)). There is only a recorded message left, no tones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.196.68 (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

three-tone

I've also heard people in the industry refer to SIT's as a threetone (spelling? three-tone or three tone?), but can't find any citations to that effect. Anyone got any news on that? Also, the SIT article in Wikipedia comes up as the top result when I google "three tone", even though the phrase doesn't actually appear in the article (p.s. although Google is Skynet, so that's hardly surprising!) BigSteve (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)