User talk:Jrod2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Archive One

Contents 1 Welcome 2 Notability of Stephen St.Croix 3 Link you removed is not spam 4 Signature 5 Loudness War (2) 6 WP:CVU status 7 Welcome! 8 Anti vandal template 9 Copyrights 10 Compulsive editing 11 That's an odd one 12 Tina Turner issue 13 This is not vandalism 14 Page reversion. Thank you. :) 15 Your Fallacies 16 Wow! 17 Much More Civil, Thanks 18 Reading history 19 CVU 20 Good Faith 21 Speedy deletion of Template:Audio engineer 22 AfD nomination of Holger Lagerfeldt 23 WP:MUSIC 24 Audio Mastering 25 Mastering, continued 26 why did 27 Your edit to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry 28 about to personal comments to OscarJuan 29 Re: Unsure of your motion 30 Some audio engineering checks 31 Sebastian Ledesma dice 32 Hu12 calls me pathetic at his talk page.

[edit] Welcome

On February 28, 2007, I used my mastering engineer's writings without his knowledge or consent to make contributions at Wikipedia. I did this totally ignorant of the rules and procedures. Even though, I tried to correct and erased everything I posted, I had no choice but to create this new account, since my Evinatea account was completely useless because of Biggy P, Mike Sorensen and all his sock puppets attacks and accusations. Read the incident at the Community Sanction Notice Board.

I sincerely apologize for my initial ignorance about the rules and procedures to all the good editors at WP, including admin Jpgordon. Also, special thanks to Orthologist, admin Fang Aili, P.B. Pilhet and admin Selket, whose sympathy and understanding gave me faith and strength during those frustrating weeks.Jrod2 17:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Stephen St.Croix

A tag has been placed on Stephen St.Croix, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Corvus cornix 18:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link you removed is not spam

Hi Soetermans, I placed that link as a reference to the edits I made on "Songs in the Key of Life" where Stephen St. Croix had a direct contribution. You don't think that site is reliable enough? [1] Jrod2 17:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Jrod! I merely took a glance over the link you edited into the article. I took a second look and it you are indeed correct. My sincere apologies. I've put the link back in to the article. --Soetermans 21:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks man. You are a fair person. My regards to you. Jrod2 13:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Soetemans, I am confused. When did I write "St.Croix". According to this diff I had it under "St. Croix. No? Jrod2 23:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi JRod, I'm afraid I don't quite follow you. I moved the article to the name of St. Croix, because the original title lacked a space between St. and Croix (like so: St.Croix). If you check the history page [2], you should see what I did. Or do you mean something else? Kind regards, --Soetermans 06:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

 Jrod2  talk 

 Jrod2  talk 

Hello, I don't know how to find the talk page on the "Songs in the Key of Life" entry. I also don't want to start a discussion. I don't know who the references are for the Steven St. Croix entries but all anyone has to do is read the album credits to see he did not engineer anything on it. These inacuracies are belived by most people who read them, from the Wikipedia website.The casual reader does not know any better, and it's wrong for you to allow them to continue

My name is Gary Olazabal. I am one of the two "REAL" recording and mix engineers for Stevie Wonder's "Songs in the Key of Life". The other is John Fischbach. Please read the album credits for confirmation, it is not that hard to do. John Fischbach has already written a published response to Mix magazine, in reference to the Steven St.Croix article and his involvement in the recording of "Songs in the Key of Life". As I have stated before he was a vendor who invented an audio processor. It was one of many we used on that album. He had no other involvement except he would hangout a lot, and he had plenty of company in doing that too.I have personally asked Stevie Wonder and he finds it laughable anyone would believe he would spend a month at Stephen St. Croix's home studio. This rumor must stop. Do some research.

http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_letters_mix_64/index.html It's very apparent that for some strange, reason you feel you have to uphold the inacuracies of an obituary, published in Mix. Please look at the link I have provided, and look at the ALBUM CREDITS and look at the BBC documentary from 1997 on the making of "Songs in the Key of Life". All the principles were involved in the documentary and there was no mention of the dearly departed Mr.St.Croix. If you are the "Protector" self-appointed or not of this article why don't you protect it from lies?

I'm not FischbachBaloobyhead 18:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)I sent you the link from the Mix article that he wrote. I am Gary Olazabal his engineering partner on "Songs in the Key of Life" as I mentioned earlier. Jeff Sanders from Crystal Studios mastered "Songs" I don't know what he is doing these days. Thanks, for finally taking out the inaccurate entries.

[edit] Loudness War (2)

I'm currently trying to stay away from heavy editing in order to stay productive. From what I gathered, the matter is being brought to 3rd opinion. This case is a little less clear cut because the source is not as notable as, say, a professional publication. I left my opinion on the talk page just now, but I'm not going to get too heavily involved in this issue. Illuminatedwax 02:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 16:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Hello there and thanks for joining the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Task Force. Would you mind going to Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Task Force/Members and completing the remaining instructions. Thanks. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 18:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti vandal template

Caution: This page is currently seeing heavier than normal activity. Edits may get reverted or removed if they are not properly sourced. If you are new to Wikipedia, please make sure your edits are referenced to a verifiable source and you provide an edit summary. If you are adding external links, please read and understand "Links to be avoided". Thank you for your cooperation and contributions! If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

Sugar Cane	(discussion)	(history)
Akai	(discussion)	(history)
Hillary Clinton	(discussion)	(history)
Loudness War	(discussion)	(history)
Kate McAuliffe	(discussion)	(history)
Russia	(discussion)	(history)
Theoria	(discussion)	(history)
Angeline Jolie	(discussion)	(history)
Hollywood	(discussion)	(history)
Barnbarian	(discussion)	(history)

[edit] Copyrights

Akai holds the copyright to the manual. We could link to it if it were available on the Akai site. We cannot link to a scanned copy on another site. That constitutes a copyright violation. It could of course be cited without a link. GlassFET 16:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just did it. Should have done it to begin with but was just lazy. Like any book or other source, it's simply necessary to given the author and exact title. A link is a bonus, but if there is not one we can use, should just be left out. GlassFET 16:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is better because Wikipedia policy prohibits linking to copyright vioations. Musicguy does not have the right to publish the manual, so we can't link to his copy of it. GlassFET 17:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you were using it as a source, in which case it has to be cited. If you are not using it as a source, then it need not be included. However, to call something "groundbreaking" you will need to cite a reference. See the verifiability policy for details. GlassFET 17:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the amount of our knowledge, we may not add our personal opinion to Wikipedia. We may only cite the opinions of others. GlassFET 17:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't deny that its a fact, but you still must be able to provide a citation to someone who has said so. GlassFET 18:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source, it's a personal webpage. You really need to read up on Wikipedia policy. Encyclopdias report on the state on knowledge based on verifiable, secondary sources. Self-published personal opinions on a website are not usable. GlassFET 18:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a reference, not a link. Footnotes are not required to be links you know. And it verifies the fact that the device is 12 track, not 14 track like some "expert" wrote. GlassFET 18:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I'll remove the whole paragraph then, since without references it fails WP:V. Respect has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia policy requires references. GlassFET 18:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing Akai out to me. I have restored the removed content, and left the reference to the manual in. Though it may not be a link, the reference is necessary to establish verifiability. References to off-line material are fine, and should not be removed when they are required. Thanks! --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 20:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding AES Convention Paper 5538 On Levelling and Loudness Problems at Broadcast Studios (link): I'm not sure if irt.de has the permissions to host/publish the AES paper. If it does, then that page is fine; if not, then that link shouldn't be there. However, in this specific case, I do not read German and I can't verify for sure either way. With regard to Akai, I looked at the manual hosted by musicguy... and I don't see any copyrights on there at all. I don't know whether or not musicguy has permission to host it, but since User:GlassFET doesn't seems to think so, I guess it's better to err on the side of caution. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 19:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compulsive editing

Compulsive Editing (Or pathological editing) is a term which is used to describe extreme editing behavior in human beings. It involves the need to change or add content to an article at: newsgroups, social sites, web forums, blogs, Wikipedia or other Wiki sites. Editing words excessively is also a phenomenon observed on blogs, where bloggers spend great lengths of time leaving each other messages that convey or deliver: a point of view, a hateful statement, a request, etc.

While there is no definition of compulsive editing in accepted diagnostic criteria, here are some common symptoms:

• The desire to prove their value or knowledge to an individual(s) or an online community.
• Computer word processing, handwriting, or machine typing precludes them from any other activities that a person requires to properly function, or even live (Such as eating, working, exercising and sleeping).
• Significant distress or impairment in functioning caused by the editing usually culminates in emergency that may require hospitalization.

Wikipedia new users
Some web visitors who come to Wikipedia are encouraged not only to read, but to help with the editing. A compulsive editor will not resist such temptation and will devote a great deal of effort in contributing to an existing article regardless of the existence of editing rules.

This mistake is made primarily by those users who found a Wikipedia article on the web and decided, that the content should be changed, improved or deleted. Their ideas may come into collision with Wikipedia's editing rules and procedures and therefore, any of their contributions may also be reverted or deleted.

Typical case scenario is when an anon IP address new visitor, oblivious of basic Wikipedia rules to inserting external links or text content to an existing article, disregards the use of verifiable sources. If this user only edits, and then leaves Wikipedia, he may never be aware that only a few minutes later all his edits have been reverted or deleted.

Only when and if, he ever returns to Wikipedia using the same computer or IP address, he will ever find out (Usually through a message on his talk page) what happened to his post.

Case Study

• 10:18 AM on March 28, 2007. An anon IP address new user enters Wikipedia. He makes an edit that lacked verifiable references [3] and also posts an external link citing a person's article that lacked both verification and notability. [4]. He found Wikipedia's Audio mastering page at the Google.com's result page [5], when he entered the search word "music mastering".

• 11:25 AM. Leaves Wikipedia after spending a little over one hour.

• 2:18 PM. An editor tags him with {{edit summary}} to let him know that he is editing without writing a description on the "Edit summary" [6].

• 8:54 AM on April 1, 2007. An editor deletes his edits [7].

• 9:08 AM. Yet another editor posted a warning tag on this anon IP address new user's talk page, [8].

Consequently, he never not found out that:

• A) All his edits were taken out.
• B) He needed to read up on WP rules and editing procedures.

The reason why this editor compulsively edited a Wikipedia article that was reasonably watched by other editors is because he CAN. He never knew that by just reading WP editing rules prior to making an edit, he could have saved a lot of time, disappointment and even aggravation.

Later on, this anon IP user became a honest and inquisitive contributor to Wikipedia. It's necessary to point out that he is one of the few exceptions rather than the norm.
References

• Compulsive Wiki Editing Disorder

Jrod2 23:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That's an odd one

That link you asked me about is rather odd. It looks like an IEEE publication, but I can't get the "About IEEE Spectrum" link to work. However, if you go to the main page, toward the bottom you can find a "List my Whitepaper" link. Apparently they will published your Whitepaper if you pay them for it. On the other hand, I believe the article is accurate. I notice that one can get rid of all the advertising by using the "Print" link [9]. I think that's what I'd do in this case. GlassFET 20:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit more dubious that that, I'd guess. First of all, even if it can be used as an external link, and I'm not sure about that, it couldn't be used as a reference. Second, if it was certain that it was the author himself who added the link to Wikipedia, then it would definitely be spam. It's a pretty borderline case. As I said when I updated the link, I would not object if somebody determined it was spam and removed it.

If you'd like to get more opinions about it, try the WikiProject Spam talk page. You'll get more points of view theere. GlassFET 21:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tina Turner issue

My thing with editing Tina's main article was because I was creating a new page for Ike & Tina Turner rather than just them individually. Those two are linked in history for what they did as a group and seeing how Sonny & Cher got their own article, I decided to do the same for Ike & Tina. I didn't delete nothing but the redirectory template that would bring the article BACK to Tina Turner in the essence, I didn't wanna do that and I've edited both Ike & Tina's pages and have done so for that long discography of Tina's that just seemed scattered and slowed down traffic when editing. I'm sorry if you feel that I was messing up "the flow" of the page so to speak but editing needed to be in order. I'm not a vandal, dig? LOL It's all good though. - BrothaTimothy, (UTC) August 28, 2007, 12:39

[edit] This is not vandalism

In response to comment that you left on my talk page. The only vandal I see is you Mr. Jrod2. You are deleting comments of other users as you did here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Audio_mastering&diff=157848128&oldid=157523737 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.164.155 (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page reversion. Thank you. :)

Well, no more worries about that one, I suppose. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do, sadly. It's like whack-a-mole. --Moonriddengirl 12:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Fallacies

The fallacies of your verbal exploits are ridiculous. What kind of power trip are you on, seriously? I'm here making contributions and you're claiming power because you think know more than me, perhaps because you're a student? What if I'm actually Bob Ludwig and you don't know it? Do I have to sit here and prove my history in the business because you're an apprentice of some guy? Who do you think you are that you have the last word on mastering? "It's people like you". This is called a "witch hunt". If you need to have a power trip, so be it, I hope you're happy with whatever it is you do! :) And I thought I WAS providing tilde's, but ok. Quiest 23:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow!

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors like you did here [10]; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Please, continue attempting to tell me what to do and continue to call me irrelevant to Wikipedia, I'm sure all users feel the same way about their own irrelevance. You caution me? What kind of nonsense is that. If I am a man? If you feel inadequate in your knob-turning exploits, I think that it's your own problem, not mine. Everybody is a student, also. Etc etc, more nonsense and noise, drop page. Follow your own guidelines that you keep posting, master chief. Quiest 01:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Much More Civil, Thanks

Thank you, Jrod, I appreciate your civility. Hopefully you will find any further contributions of mine on articles that you have contributed to be constructive. Regards, Quiest 14:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reading history

Please look carefully at the three diffs you cite. One is by Quiest, the other two do not introduce (or reintroduce) tags, merely date them. Rich Farmbrough, 20:14 28 October 2007 (GMT).

Yes, that's exactly right. Generally within a couple of days. Rich Farmbrough, 09:55 30 October 2007 (GMT).

[edit] CVU

ay, i have no problem with the revert. I just think the page is displayed poorly (depending on what the resolution on your screen is) but you can see the problem if you choose "hide" on the TOC... the 2 large images push the vandal temp into the middle of the page. hopefully we can determine what can be done to correct this, if you think this is a problem as well ? let me know what you think either way : ) MatthewYeager 00:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Faith

Jrod2, I will give you credit for being generally polite with me, so I'll respond in kind, and perhaps we can reach a civil discussion if not agreement.

From where I sit, it is you who are not acting in good faith. Quite simply, you insist on removing the link to my article when you permit other links which clearly violate the very guidelines you claim to be defending. That is bias, pure and simple, and I really don't appreciate it.

For that reason I take this personally. "Over the Limit" was one of the original WP author's references and I was really proud that my article made the waves it made. "Over the Limit" was the first article on this subject to break through into pop-culture (ie. Slashdot and Wired) and get the word out to the masses about the problems in mastering. I was proud to advance a cause I really believe in. I was flattered that when WP caught on and the LW article was published (years later) that the LW article drew heavily on my article.

I know my clickthroughs and virtually nobody clicks through from Wikipedia. I'm not promoting my site. It doesn't make real money anyway. I'm not even defending my ego - well, not much, because I do believe that I helped advance this topic in a way that nobody else did - but I've been given lots of credit elsewhere for that.

No really, I'm just peeved that, based on your actions, you have some kind of beef with me or my site, and are choosing to single my article out when you don't address other links that obviously meet the same criteria you use to justify the removal of my link. That's personal, and it does annoy me.

I have also noticed that I'm not the only person to take issue with your unilateral approach to editing the article, which is why I don't feel bad defending myself. Apparently, you're a person that needs a little push-back once in a while. That's OK with me. I think you're probably doing more good than harm, and you clearly care about this topic, so that's good.

But, in the interest of "good faith" I respectfully suggest that you spend more time rallying consensus BEFORE you start deleting content, rather than deleting first then justifying your actions later. That would go a long way towards "good faith". That's why I have chosen to not add the link back.

Thank you for being polite. Riprowan 19:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you also for reinstating the link (which I just noticed). That demonstrates significant good faith as well. Riprowan 19:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

After re-re-re-reviewing the section on SPS, I still cannot see how the ProRec article violates guidelines, and the Diament article, the YouTube video, the CuteSoft article, and several others do not. Can you clarify this? I've asked several times and am honestly curious. FWIW I do expect to contribute to WP in several areas (I use WP a lot, I might as well give back), so a little light here would be truly helpful. Honestly. I've also made a similar request from GlassFET, so far no reply. Please advise. Riprowan 05:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind reply. I agree with the perception issue. FWIW, the reason why I am *not* editing the article, just questioning the policy and its application, is because of the conflict of interest issue. Therefore, I will participate in the discussion, but not touch the content. That is precisely what is suggested in the "How not to be a spammer" section so if we're all about following the guidelines, perhaps I'm setting a very good example.

Also FWIW, my perception is simply that it's rude when the LW article, which was until recently based so largely on my work, refuses to credit my work. Not that it's plagiaristic, simply inconsiderate in a fair-play sense. Riprowan 15:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Audio engineer

A tag has been placed on Template:Audio engineer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Holger Lagerfeldt

An editor has nominated Holger Lagerfeldt, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holger Lagerfeldt and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MUSIC

Hi Jrod2. As I touched on in the Holger Lagerfeldt AfD, audio engineers don't qualify for an encyclopedia article for just having a charting credit, they need multiple reliable independent sources written about them before they qualify (WP:BIO). At some point, if I ever have the time to work up a coherent argument, I may argue for this to be changed. Obv. mix engineers and mastering engineers play a huge part in chart success in commercial music. Unfort. there's not much information published about alot of engineers, so all it might accomplish is creating alot of stub articles with some discographies, which might be interesting to other engineers, it may not be incredibly useful in building an encyclopedia. dissolve^talk 03:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Audio Mastering

Jrod2 -- I'm a bit confused by you removing the link I put to the mastering page...and saying it was a way to promote ZenMastering. I linked to a published article that had valid and unique information about mastering that the current listing didn't address. Does the fact that I wrote it seem promotional? It was published in one of the more respected pro audio magazines out today...as have many of my articles. So, as you can see I'm a professional-grade writer with publication worthy ideas. Not someone interested in self-promoting on Wikipedia.

Perhaps the iZotope link and the Bob Katz link should be removed too, as they promote businesses as well.

[edit] Mastering, continued

Jrod2 -- Thanks for your reply. I understand your perspective, but it's also flawed. Promotion is promotion, no matter who puts it up there. You're drawing an arbitrary distinction based on your own (or WP's) "rules." And because a few people think that iZotope's .pdf if useful, it's kept. It may be useful. As is the link I put up...which is an article linking to a magazine publication. Something useful enough that a third-party decided to publish it (SOS). I felt it was something useful to add to the page.

My point being that I think you're deleting *useful information* b/c you think I'm trying to self promote. I'm not. I'm trying to add useful information...it just happens to be information I've written...and a lot of other people have benefitted from.

And I certainly won't tell you ARA isn't run by me. It is. It's there for people's education, and includes articles by and about people besides me. Again, a site dedicated to spreading useful information.

And I'm not angry that you deleted my links, and I'm not going to delete iZotope's .pdf. I just think you should be more focused on the addition of useful info, not assuming people are trying to self-promote.

I'd like to point out a few items to you here from the Book of Wiki:

• Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, follow the three-revert rule, and remember that there are 2,324,137 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.

• Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required. Do not worry about messing up. All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. Remember, whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity.

You may want to think about those a bit before hitting the delte key.

P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulzm1a (talk • contribs) 00:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] why did

Why did you archive that discussion so soon? Has a consensus been reached already?--AtTheAbyss (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind; I understand now. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry

I question whether your edit properly reflects the spirit of the policy, and I began a talk section on the discussion page with this edit. Blackworm (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] about to personal comments to OscarJuan

Dear sir: you are wrong about your appreciations. In first place, please go to Wikipedia: NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH and you will read under the point "Citing oneself" as follows:

"This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest"

Please note that I only cite articles from recognized international Journals revised by peers (like Audio Engineering Society) In all the articles that my name appears. The same we said of my ROOM ACOUSTICS edition. This was a very poor article that I improve with scientific contributions. Probably you do not undestand the difference between a "scientific contribution" and a commercial one. We are not citing a commercial brochure, we are citing AES Journal papers and Text boock used at Universities in USA and Europe. It is the same for you ?

Second issue: I do not make "promotion" since we use an archive photo of the equipment manufactured 20 years ago. Our company do not manufacture tape recorders since 15 years ago.

I hope your discrimination campaign must stop. In your page only German and American developments appear.

OscarJuan

I've also had a discussion with OscarJuan, his responses have been insulting, condescending, and presume to educate me as to what constitutes invention. It seems that he believes that he had the first coder, and insists, repeatedly he had the first REAL perceptual coder, even though there are a host of references from before, because he claims to have reduced his to hardware.

I find this comical, because at this time, there are very few "hardware" coders of any sort. They all consist of software, running on a processor. Woodinville (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Jrod, I don't mind his appearing in a broadcast automation article. He does appear to have a reasonable claim to that, and I'm fine with it. It's the "first coder" that I can't swallow. Woodinville (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought things got better, and that we reached an agreement over those kind of edits. However, within the last few days, OscarJuan's edits seems to still be a bit on the border of self-promotion. Is there a formal process to resolve those kind of recurring issues? --Gabriel Bouvigne (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Unsure of your motion

I removed it because I thought that it was too complex of a case for WP:AIV, as the abuse wasn't clear and obvious vandalism to me, despite the whole situation being sketchy. Anyway, I'd consider bringing it to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents if you still feel this needs admin action. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 17:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Slakr, It's what I thought. However, if you check his contributions and, by his own admission, his name and the external link, it's clear vandalism on his part reverting and ignoring policy. He hasn't been posting the said material in the last 24 hours, so I am going to hold on reporting to WP:ANI.

[edit] Some audio engineering checks

Would you please check (if you can) the accuracy and relevance of the edits done by the IP address 190.16.150.89 ? --Gabriel Bouvigne (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've already deleted most of the edits by IP 190.16.150.89, which appears to be a Bonello's sock or meat puppet account. Also, I've just deleted the research claims he made to Audio amplifier, so thanks for directing me to it. If this IP returns to revert, he'll be blocked on the spot. The scale of self promotion for both, him and his company, these people have brought up to Wikipedia is unbelievable. Jrod2 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sebastian Ledesma dice

Hola!
Mi nombre es Sebastian Ledesma, yo soy el autor del articulo inicial en Wikipedia sobre Audicom. Lo cree hace 2 años porque me pareció información relevante. Se que trabajo en la compañia que lo creó, pero traté de hacerlo de manera neutral. Cree dicho articulo en mi tiempo libre, la compañia no me pagó para hacerlo, ni me esta pagando ahora (sábado a las 4 AM!).

Acerca de la norma ECAM: fue creada desde cero. Sin copiar a nadie. Bonello reconoce que el conocia los principios teoricos del enmascaramiento pero era considerado mas bien una curiosidad del comportamiento del oido humano. Lo novedoso fue usar dichos principios para descartar informacion y asi engañar al oido. Bonello sabia que era posible, asi que emprendio el proyecto de crear la norma, las placas y la aplicacion (ok, el trabajo duro lo hicieron sus ingenieros, pero Bonello fue el de la idea).

Acerca de las placas Audicom: no busque hacer SPAM. Las placas son obsoletas hoy en dia. Asi que no espero que vengan clientes corriendo a comprarlas, ni estoy induciendo a su compra, y por otro lado, las placas ya dejaron de fabricarse (asi que no la empresa no podria venderlas). Busco documentar lo que se hizo. No fue la primera placa de audio, ese merito corresponde (en mi opinion) a Creative, quienes a su vez copiaron el diseño del generador de sonido de Adlib, y le agregaron la opcion de grabar y reproducir en 8 bits (pero se olvidaron de poner un filtro anti-alias! con lo que su sonido era horrible!). Pero si fue la primera compañia que lo hizo en Latinoamerica, desde cero y sin copiar el diseño de otros fabricantes de placas de audio (porque no habia), y ademas con la capacidad de comprimir y descomprimir audio en tiempo real y basado en un codec psicoacustico (primitivo si lo comparamos con los actuales AAC, WMA y otros, pero efectivo para la epoca). Les llevo tiempo, no habia Google para buscar informacion, no habia software para simular circuitos como el TINA, no habia software para hacer los PCB (un dibujante tecnico lo hacia con lapiceras Rotring), no habia entornos integrados de desarrollo (como el RAD Studio de [Codegear]) para hacer el software, pero asi y todo tuvieron la placa en 1988 y el producto en 1989. La compañia estaba tan segura de lo que tenia que invirtio en el viaje de 12000 kilometros a la NAB del proximo año a mostrar lo que habia hecho.

Acerca del Audicom: fue todo una novedad en su momento. Creo el concepto de software para radios dentro de una PC. Hoy en dia esa clase de software se esta volviendo un 'commoditie' (incluso hay algunos gratis), y la mayoria son parecidos (tienen un 'file manager', un 'live assist', un 'playlist', etc. Algunos hasta copian inconcientemente el cursor rojo para indicar el tema en play y el cursor verde para indicar el proximo tema!). Solidyne no controla el mercado, y no veo que gane ninguna participacion. No busque hacer spam sobre ello, si te fijas el dominio [www.audicom.com] pertenece a una firma finlandesa con la que no tenemos relación. Si considero meritorio que figure al igual que Visicalc. La relevancia del producto es que cambio el mercado, grandes fabricantes de cintas como Shure dejaron el mercado de las mismas por la aparicion de productos similares o mejores al Audicom.

Acerca de Solidyne: inclui el nombre de la empresa porque es un hecho cierto, no trate de hacer publicidad diciendo venga y compre. Tampoco cree un articulo en Wikipedia sobre Solidyne, dado que como trabajo en ella podria interpretarse como publicidad. Agregue el link al sitio oficial de Solidyne porque respete el estilo existente de cualquier articulos de wikipedia (como Costa Cruceros, Dolby, etc.). Ademas no hay una asociacion directa entre el nombre de la compañia y su web site (www.solidyne.com apunta a un fabricante norteamericano de equipos industriales).

Acerca de Bonello: es Ingeniero en Electronica recibido en la Universidad de Buenos Aires. Una de las universidades mas prestigiosas de Latinoamerica (4 de los 5 premios Nobels que tuvo la Argentina acudieron a dicha universidad [11]). Además es profesor dicha universidad (tecnicamente hablando es el Jefe de Catedra de Acustica). Es miembro de la Audio_Engineering_Society, ha hecho varias publicaciones en la misma y ha sido galardonado por la misma en el 2007 [12]. Adicionalmente ha dado conferencias en varios paises del mundo y ha publicado varios libros sobre acustica [13] todos antes existiera Wikipedia, asi que no escribio los libros para figurar en la misma. Bonello tiene su nombre (y tambien su dinero), yo por lo menos tengo juventud y soy buen mozo! :P .

Acerca de mi: En mi edicion original no incluí mi nombre (no me parecio apropiado). Me rei al ver incluido mi nombre. Yo forme parte del desarrollo de Audicom en la parte final del desarrollo en Windows. No busco figurar en wikipedia por ello y no hare ningun movimiento para que mi nombre sea incluido. No llegue a conocer al Ingeniero Demaria, pero si conozco al Ingeniero Ricardo Sidoti y doy fe que es un brillante ingeniero (Bonello no uso el adjetivo 'brillante' conmigo :) ). Sidoti fue alumno de Bonello (y este no fue tonto al contratarlo en su empresa) y adicionalmente fue profesor universitario en la Universidad de Buenos Aires. Todo el trabajo que hago publicando en Wikipedia lo hago en mi tiempo libre (mañana posiblemente continue corrigiendo y exponiendo sobre el articulo), Bonello es conciente de ello y no me da ninguna directiva respecto de que poner (en ocasiones tuve discusiones muy fuertes con el, pero por razones de ingeniera). Trate de agregar la mayor informacion posible (tengo todavia mas cosas que hacer, como transpasar audio ECAM a MP3 asi pueden escuchar como era el sonido ECAM), a veces tardo porque no estoy muy acostumbrado a escribir en wikipedia (y tengo que hacerlo en mi tiempo libre!).

Acerca del Diario La Nacion: Es uno de los mas prestigiosos diarios de Argentina. De corte conservador, fue fundado por un ex-presidente del pais, tiene mas de 100 años de antiguedad y varios reconocidos escritores (Jorge Luis Borges, Jose Marti, Manuel Mujica Laines, Jose Ortega y Gasset, Alfonso Reyes, Miguel Unamauno) han participado a lo largo de los años en su redacción. Sus editores son muy rigurosos y puedes darla por una fuente confiable (nunca veras el resultado de un partido de futbol puesto en primera plana para tapar los problemas del pais). No pagamos para que nos hagan una nota (no pagariamos por motivos morales, y no tenemos plata para pagar algo asi!). Tambien estoy buscando otras referencias (scaneo de revistas, fotografias del stand, etc). Por eso es que me motivo crear el articulo en wikipedia, para que quede registrado, de caracter arqueologico-tecnologico y no como una forma de impulsar las ventas. No creo que una persona compre un procesador de audio por una placa que hizo la compañia hace 20 años, hoy en dia veran en cualquier exposicion que los concurrentes entran al stand por las chicas bonitas o aperitivos gratis o algun producto con muchas luces que les llame la atencion.

Por otro lado creo que es una obligacion moral de wikipedia incluir el conocimiento. Gracias a ella, ahora sabemos que es el papiamento, aunque solo el 0,0047% de la poblacion mundial habla ese idioma, este tiene su lugar en Wikipedia. Y tambien sabemos que Leon_Scott invento el primer grabador de sonido al que llamó phonautograph. Durante años se atribuyo dicha invencion a Thomas Edison. Solo muy recientemente fue posible decodificar sus grabaciones. De la misma forma deseo registrar lo que hicieron estas personas mas de 20 años atras, cuando yo jugaba con una C-64.
.

Saludos!

Hi!:
My name is Sebastian Ledesma, I am the initial author of the article in Wikipedia about Audicom. I've created it 2 years ago because I considered relevant information. I know that I work in the company that created the Audicom, nevertheless I've tried to be as neutral as possible. I did it on my spare time, the company didn't paid me to do it, and they they are not paying now (Saturday at 4 a.m.!).</ br>

About the ECAM: it was created from zero. Without copying anyone. Bonello recognizes that the theoretical principles of masking were know but that was considered a curiosity behavior of human ear. His novel idea was to use those principles to discard information and so 'cheat' the ear. Bonello knew that was possible, so they started the project of creating an algorithm, hardware cards and the application for that (ok, the hard work they did their engineers, but based on Bonello's idea).

About Audicom cards: I didn't tried to do SPAM. These cards are obsolete today. So I do not expect customers to come running to buy, nor I'am inducing its purchase, and on the other hand, the cards already ceased to be manufactured (so the company could not sell them). I was looking to documentate what was done. It wasn't the first audio card, I credit this (in my opinion) to Creative, who in turn copied the design of the sound generator card from Adlib, and added an option to play in 8-bit samples (but forgot put a filter anti-aliasing! so that sound was horrible!). Solidyne but if it was the first company that did so in Latin America (and one of the first in the world), from scratch and without copying the design of other manufacturers of audio cards (because there wasn't any to copy), and also with the ability to compress and decompress audio in real time and based on a psychoacoustics codec (primitive when compared with existing AAC, WMA and others, but worked for that time). It took time to do it, there wasn't Google to search for information, there wasn't software to simulate circuits lika Tina, there was'nt software to make PCBs (a technical cartoonist did it with technical pens Rotring), there wasn't IDEs (such as RAD Studio CodeGear) to make the software, but they finally achieved it! The card was ready in 1988, and the product in 1989. The company was so sure that what they had invested in the journey of 12000 km to the NAB next year to show what they had done. </ Br>

About Audicom: it was a real novelty by that time. It created the concept of broadcast from a PC. Nowadays such software is becoming a 'commodity' (there are even some free), much of them pretty similar (have a 'file manager', a 'live assist', a 'playlist' and so on, some even unconsciously copied the cursor red to indicate the title in play and the cursor green to indicate the next item!). Solidyne does not control that market, and I do not see that it will gain any market share due to hard competition. I didn't tried to do SPAM about it, if you look the domain [www.audicom.com] belongs to a Finnish firm with which we have no relationship. I consider worthy to include in wikipedia as others products as VisiCalc do it. The relevance of the product that it changed the market, large manufacturers of cartridges and tapes (like Shure) left market by the appearance of products like-alike the Audicom (or better).

About Solidyne: I've included the name because it is a fact, I didn't try advertise saying come and buy. Neither I've created an article in Wikipedia about Solidyne, given that as work on it could be interpreted as advertising. I've added the link to the official site for Solidyne because I respected the style of others articles on Wikipedia (such as Costa Cruises, Dolby, etc.). Besides there is no direct association between the name of the company and its web site (www.solidyne.com points to a U.S. manufacturer of industrial equipment).

About Bonello: He is an Electronic Engineering, graduated at the University of Buenos Aires. One of the most prestigious universities in Latin America (4 of 5 Nobels prizes that Argentina have received attended at that university ). Besides, he is professor at that university (technically speaking is the Chief of professors). He is also member of the Audio_Engineering_Society, has published several technical papers on it, and has been awarded by the same community [14]. Additionally has dictated several conferences in various countries around the world and has published several books on acoustic all existed before Wikipedia, so he didn't wrote those books just to appear in it. Bonello has his name (and also his money!), at least I'm young and good looking! :P.

About me: In my original edition I did not include my name (I did not seem appropriate). I laughed when he saw my name included. I was part of the development of Audicom at the final part of the development for Windows. I'm not trying to figure in wikipedia and I don't will do any movement so my name is included. I didn't have oportunity to knew engineer Demaria, but I know the engineer Ricardo Sidoti and I can personally testify that he is a brilliant engineer (Bonello didn't use the adjective 'brilliant' on me :)). Sidoti was a student of him(and Bonello was very smart when he hired him) and also was university professor at the University of Buenos Aires. All the work that I posted on Wikipedia I do in my spare time (possibly I will continue tomorrow on exposing and correcting the article), Bonello is aware of this and I do not give any directive to put on (sometimes I had very strong discussions with him, but always for technical questions). I've tried to add more information as possible (I have still more things to do, like transcode from ECAM to MP3 audio so all can listen how was the sound of ECAM), sometimes it took me time because I'm not very familiarized to write in wikipedia (there isn't a better way to write that this edit box!?!?!) (and I have to do in my free time!).

About the Diario La Nacion: It is one of the most prestigious newspapers in Argentina. It has a conservative orientation, was founded by a former president of the country, has more than 100 years old and several recognized spanish writers (Jorge Luis Borges, José Martí, Manuel_Mujica_Laínez, José_Ortega_y_Gasset, Alfonso Reyes, Miguel_de_Unamuno among others) have participated over the years in their editions. Their editors are very strict and you can trust on them as a very reliable source (I dont expect that the result of a soccer match will gain the headlines just to hide the country's problems). We didn't pay for them for an article (we never will pay for moral reasons). I am also looking for other references (journals, photographs of the stand, etc.). That's why I've created the article at first time, so it's registered, with an archaeological nature of technological progress and not as a way to boost sales. I do not think that a person will buy an audio-processor just by a card that the company did make 20 years ago. Today, I see that in any comercial show that the attendees enter into a stand just for the pretty girls, free snacks or any product with many lights that call their attention.

On the other hand I think it is an obligation of moral wikipedia include knowledge. Thanks to it, now we know that what is the papiamento. Only 0.0047% of the world population speaks that language, and its has his place in Wikipedia. And we also know that Leon_Scott invented the first sound recorder which he called phonautograph. For years this was attributed to Thomas Edison invention. Only very recently it was possible to decode his recordings. In the same way I wish to record what they did these people over 20 years ago, when I was playing with a C-64.
.

Saludos!
SLedesma (talk) 07:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)~

Hola:

Good to know that we can understand.

So, who is/are the admin that I should address?

When I've created the second article (Audicom - PC cards) I was trying to enhace the info, and avoiding to create a long and boring single article. But if you consider more apropiate, I will merge into the first one covering three main points: Audicom cards, ECAM technology, and Audicom software. It will take time, but at the end all will be happier. I just want that all the editors agree the merge, and not to start receiving AfD in the original article.

About adding more references to Audicom, I've placed on (a personal) web site some olds scans.

The first one, is an advertisement in a canadian magazine (Broadcast Technology, page 67) wich shows that the product (not a experimental technologie) was available. I wasn't able to locate the current web site, but the MSC company, that was the representative seems to exist today at the same address at Ontario.

The other two are articles are from 'La Nacion', now from the years 1990, and 1991.

I don't know if they have an online microfilm archive.

The stand at the NAB show was share with a company called GDI (I saw a picture on our building). Solidyne also was present on others NAB (more pictures from 93, 94, 95). I wasn't able to get a list of exhibitors year by year from the NAB website.

I'm also trying to get an ADX903 card, we have no one in stock, but probably some old customer has any one archived, to get a picture of it.

About the other articles, I didn't write them, but I will ask to Bonello to follow a consensus way. He already contacted Gabriel Bouvigne in a previous time.

About the Solidyne article, my personal email is Sebastian_Ledesma (at) yahoo.com. I consider that a brief summary will be enought, and I want to keep my original Audicom article as my contribution to the community :P

Saludos! SLedesma (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

JRod:

I don't have the last edition, but don't worry, I remember it basically and usually, when you do a thing for second time, you do in a better way.

Saludos

SLedesma (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Bonello's Reply:

Dear Joe Rodriguez. This is about your comment "Yo puedo cambiar mi posicion. Uds creen que yo no sentiria orgullo de los logros de un Latinoamericano? Por supuesto que si. Todo lo que les pido es que se prosiga de acuerdo a nuestras reglas. Contacteme si es que les interesa mi apoyo" MY REPLY IS YES, I am interested in your help At this stage probably you have noted that my personal interest is not " personal promotion" I am an 68 years old AES Fellow and do not need promotion because I am not searching for a new Job (I have my own company). What am I doing at Wikipedia ? We wish that the international engineering community know the work done in Latin America. This will encourage other young engineers and doctorates of Latin America to come into the R & D audio field. That is my goal. Please let me know how must I proceed. Since you change many articles (accepting my contributions but eliminating my name and country of it) I feel that maybe you will be so kind to change it again according Wikipedia rules. Your opinion will be very important for me

Regards 190.16.150.89 (talk) OscarJuan~~

[edit] Hu12 calls me pathetic at his talk page.

I will report your abuse, count on it. It seems you want my company to be associated with the word spam all over the web, well, I got news for you, that's libel and you are responsible for it. I told you there was no spam on my part, no impersonation, just someone who didn't know the rules and made a couple of mistakes. And to prove it, one only needs to look at the diff with my first edit and see that I signed my engineer's name and my username. Only someone who has no idea of how things work can do something like that and it's certainly not consistent with the behavior of a spammer OK, Mr. CVU fellow member (right). By your own admission, you are known to be an abusive and I would add, an irrational admin as well. Calling "pathetic" to users who have only demonstrated to be an asset to the project have no place at WP and you should be reprimanded for it (if not dismissed) Later. Jrod2 (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)