User talk:Jrod2/Archive 1

Archive 1

To all members at Wikipedia: A call to resolve the issues at the "Audio mastering" page

All editors at Wikipedia,

It appears that an editor, calling himself Mike Sorensen, in March 2007 placed on the Wikipedia "Audio mastering" page, a section called "Artmastering", complete with a supporting external link (See: [1]).

This article titled "Artmastering" which is related to audio mastering, was previously deleted for lack of support (See: [2]).

Originally, the article was posted as an external link by user "Voy7" in August 2006 (See:[3])

Around the same time, 2 more external links, one citing the same "Artmastering" studio. This was done anonymously with IP address 66.214.253.155 located in Burbank, California (Check IP) and (See: [4]and [5]).

Let's analyze this further:

66.214.253.155 (See IP) :66.214.253.51 (See IP) (An unknown user who also supported "Artmastering" and attacked those who didn't agree (See: [6] and [7])

Location: Burbank, California.

According to most system administrators, there is a 95% chance or certainty, that these 2 IP addresses belong to the same user. Is this just a coincidence? It gets better. He plays with Wikipedia, erasing negative comments (See: [8]) and tries to erase his tracks from the system (See: [9]). Who could have an interest to do this?

The account Voy7 a/k/a "R.Watts" and the IP address with location in Burbank, were associated with accusations of sock puppetry (See:[10])

The "Artmastering" article and all external links were removed. Then, "Artmastering" was re-posted again by Mike Sorensen as indicated above in early March 2007 (See: [11]), only to be removed for the last time by a Sysop at Wikipedia (See: [12]).

All the aforesaid external links, direct to articles about "Artmastering", in Burbank, California.

The '"Artmastering" article, for the most part, is in the form of an interview with this mastering engineer, the creator of "Artmastering". It had a few brief quotations by well-known audio engineers agreeing with his views. (See: Mastering Your Music).

By his own admission, the interviewer of these "Artmastering" articles, who identifies himself as Scott G, "The G-Man", owns G-Man Marketing (See: [13]).

G-Man Marketing is in the business of consulting on advertising, marketing, positioning (Presumably for web/page rank), branding and sonic branding (See: [14])

This "Artmastering" article, as a reference link at the mastering page, presented a problem for some users. As strongly indicated on the Wikipedia talk page and by the editors that deleted the "Artmastering" page (See: [15]). Some editors considered it a deliberate act of company promotion for the mastering lab and studio.

I personally thought, that the "Artmastering" article did not meet the criteria for inclusion, since after researching the volume of interviews conducted by Scott G, "The G-Man", I found out that there were many more interviews (See: [16]), but no other mastering engineer was ever been interviewed by him (At least not found on the web).

The interviews, that I did find about "Artmastering", were apparently published by low to mid level of importance web sites of which Scott G, "The G-Man" is either a staff member or has an active affiliation (See: Click here).

(See disclosure next to Sayecki's photo [17]).

When I asked Mike Sorensen if he could provide more interviews, not by The G-Man, but by other known and reputable journalists, supporting views on the subject of "Artmastering" (See [18]), he accused me of making a personal attack against him and Scott G, "The G-Man” (See: [19]).

He next accused me of being a "sock puppet account" of another user (See: [20]). This unknown user came in that day to apologize to Mike Sorensen for being rude to him in the past (See: [21]) and to respectfully request that article not be included on the mastering page again. (See: [22])

Believe me, I am not attacking anyone. I am only making inquiries to establish that the mastering engineer and his studio, has proven notability and not placed on the page for pure financial gain.

Although Mike Sorensen is sure that the work at this facility "is great" (See: [23]), my concern is that some people could get mislead by representations made on an informational page, but in effect being used for advertisement and self-promotion.

The long discussions and disruptive behavior of some users (See: [24]), one in particular that goes under the name "Biggy P", have made other users angry (See [25]).

Apparently, "Biggy P" provides support, by ridiculing (See: [26]) or harassing users who don't agree with Mike Sorensen (See: [27] and [28]). He has done this supporting roll in the past (See: [29]), and was presumed to be acting in connection with the account Voy7 a/k/a "R.Watts".

He also makes accusations of "sock puppetry" to anyone who questions Mike Sorensen views (See: [30]).

Certainly, you will agree that such thuggery, should not have a place on a Wikipedia talk page.

That said, it is not acceptable to link an article to a Wikipedia page that constitutes a conflict of interest, not by its contributor, Mike Sorensen, but by the author of the interview, "The G-Man", which at the very least, appears to be a biased promotion of a mastering engineer's studio facility.

My purpose in writing this is to bring this issue to a conclusion, so that Mike Sorensen's proposed inclusion gets adequate review, consideration, discussion and dismissal.

We need community and maybe Sysop intervention and WE NEED A FINAL RESOLUTION (This dispute started in the middle of 2006).

I sincerely hope that we can resolve this issues to the audio mastering page, so that we can all move on.

I greatly appreciate your time. Jrod2 20:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your Question

Hello, Jrod2.

I have read the message you left me on my talk page, and though it is a little cluttered (no offense), I think I've got the gist of it. What you basically have is a content dispute, and these disputes are governed by strict policies (civility, assuming good faith, the Three Revert Rule, etc.). There is also a specific page with instructions on how to resolve disputes, located here. After reviewing most of the situation, I advise you go to step two of the resolving process, which is requesting mediation.

You might also want to discuss your problem with an administrator, as sysops are used to handling disputes and may be able to provide you with more assistance than I can. But if I were you, I would go ahead and request mediation, as no one appears to be willing to cooperate.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me. -- P.B. Pilhet 23:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply: You're welcome, Jrod. If there's anything else I can help you with, just let me know. -- P.B. Pilhet 21:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk-page

Whether an article it acceptable or not it really doesn't matter. That is why we have discussions on talk pages to figure that out. Editors sometimes submit articles with hope that others will find additional resources to support their point of view and not in hope that they will get assaulted. It is OK to disagree and reject the subject or references, but it is NOT ok to slur people that you have never met with accusations. If "artmastering" really is a new trend then it will survive by itself, without you and me, and there is no need to fight over it. I actually respect people that can bring a good argument, and at one point you have had one, but I do not respect people who assault others with personal accusations as this is just plain wrong. I'm not the only one who is judging your actions here, if you really want to contribute then you need to clean the mess that you have left behind. Withdraw your comments, clean the sock puppet mess, and write a couple good articles, and I'm sure others will notice. Your apology is a great start. Thank you.--Mike Sorensen 08:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for venting anger and frustration. And it is definitely NOT wikipedia way, read Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Deleting your offensive remarks is a great answer. So clean your comments and let the others worry about theirs. And until you do, I really don't have much to talk to you about. BTW, I will be happy to remove the sock puppet tags from your userpage if you start acting like a wikipedian. Also please do not post on my userpage any of your invetigations or comments about other pleople, whether they are editors at wikipedia or not. --Mike Sorensen 22:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The Community Noticeboard thing

Well, once consensus has been reached (and it may take some time), an administrator will block the accounts (although it might not be amiss to contact jpgordon or another admin and ask that the sockpuppets be blocked, since they are being used to gain the upper hand in an edit war, which is not allowed.) and the user will be added to The list of banned users. A banned user is not allowed to post on this site, and any user that sneaks around the ban will have its posts reverted when they are found out. SirFozzie 23:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning

I have removed all damiging references to your boss Edxx Vxxx from audio mastering page as well as all the damaging references to others including Vestmxx and Artxxx. I will also remove and edit all other pages where this whole discussion have spilled.

I'm asking you not to edit any of these pages. If you disagree with my edits please email me first.

Also in the future do not use names of living persons in a damaging context because this results in edit wars like the one at hand. --ProperManner 00:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

BiggyP

I appreciate your help but I'm not going to take a look at the case. Mike seems to be doing "random admin pick" and I hate that. :) I'd rather do other stuff. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Checks

Iclaudius2 = MasterChemical = 75.19.58.45. Wamnet seems unrelated. I choose not to check Omegatron. Voice-of-All 16:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

theoria

Hey now don't think the editing you did isn't appreciated. Your edits did make the article better and thank you. It's just the subject is very touchy and will make the romana-Greek (aka Byzantine) very mad very fast. I love them most soborly so I want their approval. They are most precious. So it is something to be very careful about. LoveMonkey 01:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That was nice of you. I just stumbled upon that page, read your great thoughts (and all the people's contributions) and I asked for guidance (Inner one), and then, the words became obvious right in front of me , but if I don't have the words, then I am and it is useless. If you want, I read through the next paragraph and I won't edit anything until you first read it. Now, just one question, did you mean "the experience of a God" as in his presence is among us no matter what and no matter where we go? Or, "the experience of God" as if he is telling his children how they should behave. I think that how you chose that, it will yield on of those 2 outcomes. God bless.Jrod2 01:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Again! Question, Do url links on talk pages help pagerank on searches?

Dear Mr. Selket it's Evinatea remember?. It's a long story. But now that I can function at WP as Jrod2, I would like to stay in touch and ask a question about external links:

Remember we discussed before the possibility of getting pagerank preferences on search engines, when you have a link on an article page? Does that theory applies to links on the talk pages as well? What do you think what this user did (See: [32]) I "wikied" his link, would this prevent page rank? (See:[33]) I am eager to hear from you again. Best. Jrod2 18:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The general rule is that Wikipedia uses nofollow but mirror sites may not. Since most mirror sites do not include the talk pages, it is unlikely that posting a link on a talk page will increase page rank substantially. Also, I would be happy to keep in touch. Let me know if I can be of assistance. --Selket ^Talk 03:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I have posted a reply to you most recent question (about checkuser blocks) on my talk page. The thread is getting a little too messy to copy back and forth, so please just see my answer there. --Selket ^Talk 15:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Administrator Selket? WOW!!

I was talking to you this whole time and you were a sysop? Man! That's awesome, thanks for the reply!! Then, you are one of the best ones. I now feel disturbed of a presumable violation of guidelines perpetrated by another admin just to prove YOU wrong. I don't know, maybe you should take a look at this evidence and let me know if you see any wrong doing. And, maybe you can tell me also how serious it could be? . You remember this fellow? This thing he did, it's really what disturbs me (See evidence: [34]) when in March 2007, he tried to change external link policy and was luckily he was stopped (See: [35] he probably didn't realize at that moment, it was reverted. Next, he went back to tell you to stop [36], and even adds another one (I guess to rub it in) (See: [37]) Does he win his argument or dispute about reverting deleted external links with you? You tell me, see: [38]. If that's the case, does he have to win a dispute that way?. As I recall it, you deleted the external links because we both agreed that they were not providing further information to the article and in fact, looked more like they were promoting other business web sites. Let me know your views on what really happened with this fellow. Have a great Sunday. Jrod2 17:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I was talking to you this whole time and you were a sysop ... you are one of the best ones.' Well, thank you. It's probably just because I'm new, but I hope not. When we first started talking I wasn't one. I was sysoped fairly recently. The user you cite did some things that may have been a bit rash -- as we all do from time to time. It was a while ago, and I would prefer at this point I think to let it go rather than digging it up again. Thanks again for your support. --Selket ^Talk 04:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Loudness war

hi -- I was a bit confused by the message you left on my talk page, and it took me while to figure out that I'd left a deletion tag on the page a year and a half ago! It's been deprodded now. I see your concern with the external links, but googling shows this to be a well-understood concept and I see plenty of citations. It probably needs a good cleanup, and I would be with you on purging some external links and including better references, but it looks like a decent article now. thanks. bikeable (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Jrod2, I think it was inappropriate to put the spam tag on my user page as I am not affiliated with Mix Magazine in anyway nor do I think that the link was put up as an attempt to garner Wikipedia traffic. Please tone down the vigilante stuff; the page has some dubious links to forums and such, but no one is trying to spam the site. I think you're preventing useful information from being seen in this article. Calm down, Illuminatedwax 03:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually tagged you for re-inserting suspicious spam links without reaching consensus, not for the suspicion of being affiliated with the Magazine. Please read your tags and be aware that removing, does not erase them from the record. I have not become disturbed by you. But, you should be careful next time. Thank you. Jrod2 03:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Not convinced

Sorry, I'm not convinced. --Kjoonlee 19:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Multi level templates if you haven't done so already. It is advisable to use level 3 templates only when assuming bad faith; you shouldn't do this unless you have firm evidence. WP:AGF. --Kjoonlee 19:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding what constitutes vandalism, please reread Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not. Thank you. --Kjoonlee 19:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't just vandalism

I just didn't understand why the references section had spam, since many other articles use external links as references. Perhaps the "Petition to remaster Californication" is spam, and should be retired, but otherwise I can't find another spam link, and they're all reliable sources --190.84.140.135 17:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes 190.84.140.135 , I have the same impression, user Jrod2 is persistantly removing legitimate links. --Rert2 04:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Leave me alone, please

I feel that you are harassing me on my talk page. I am not Vandalizing Loudness War, nor am I trying to spam it. You are clearly confused as to what spam and vandalism are; I suggest you read and comprehend WP:SPAM. WP:AGF, Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not. I don't appreciate you posting unjustified warnings on my talk page. Thank you. Illuminatedwax 08:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Rightly said. Bogus vandalism warnings and vague threats (such as those you issue to other people, Jrod2) are also a form of vandalism, IMHO. --Kjoonlee 10:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am very sorry but, you people need to stop reverting and deleting my templates. Then, you won't get tagged. Jrod2 12:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You just put another warning on my talk page even though I didn't even change anything besides commenting on talk pages. Chill out, man. Illuminatedwax 12:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen, first get your facts together (See evidence: [39]). Second, don't think for one moment that I was fooled. So, please be civil, gain consensus and don't be too obvious, OK Kjoon? Have a nice editing day . Jrod2 12:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right; I got the timestamps wrong. But my first point stands. Illuminatedwax 13:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again, If you delete that template you get the last Vandal level tag. Please refrain from further deletions and from making disruptive remarks. Jrod2 13:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm reposting my edit summary on Illuminatedwax's page: "Not getting consensus for changes doesn't means vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not, section stubborness". --190.84.140.135 22:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No need for vandalism tags

There was no reason to put a spam and vandalism tag on User:Andrew.levine's user talk page. Vandalism is very much different than reverting your changes, and as we've been arguing, spam is not linking to a useful resource. Don't be so quick to lash out judgment. Illuminatedwax 07:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing useful references

No matter what opinions you have about those two mastering engineers (Bob Katz and Nika Aldrich), the consensus on Wikipedia seems to be that they are both respected and published authors in the field. If you know of other engineers who have written important books in the field, please feel free to include them as well. You have no grounds on which to demand any sort of "alternative", especially in an area on WP where references are scant. That's not how Wikipedia works: if you want alternatives, you find them. You are saying on Talk:Audio_mastering that you are going to remove every single reference to them you find on Wikipedia. I believe that would be grossly disruptive, and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from this action. Illuminatedwax 06:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a fine line between a good reference link meant to provide further support and expansion to an existent article, and an external link that provides minimum expansion on the subject, but in effect, cleverly promotes someone's name under the cover of self proclaimed "mastery" on the subject at hand, or simply using fame by association. I don't think of Bob Katz as an authority no more than I think about Bob Ludwig is one. As far as the Grammy Katz won, he should kiss the feet of the singer that gave him that honor "by default". There is no merit in doing a routine job (Which already paid you well) or, any glory in it. A mastering engineer who gets production mixes from major labels, is perhaps the most inept to master real problem mixes from independent artists. Thus, their so called "Authority" on sound, is based mostly on working with seamless mix productions by award winning engineers. In the example of Bob Katz, unless he had engineered that album that gave him a "Grammy" from the tracking stage, to the mixing stage and finally to the mastering stage, then yes, he would be deserving of that award. Most likely, it fell on his lap and now he's using it as a bait to entice others to use his services. Every engineer has a gimmick or a "magic" gizmo to do so. Big deal. But his, certainly worked to include him in WP by a naive and gullible editor like you. Jrod2 17:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Knowledge vs Ignorance

According to your comment above you don't consider Bob Ludwig as an authority on mastering. Well...Bob Ludwing's studio Gateway Mastering is responsible for mastering of more Grammy winning and nominated records then any other studio in the USA with the exception of Grundman mastering. If you don't think the Bob Ludwig is an authority on mastering then you are completely ignorant on subject. --VinylJoe 17:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Grammy award" winning mastering engineers are the most inept in my view to master real problem mixes, and therefore, not much authority. If you are impressed by the gear they use such as the equipment you tried to list at the mastering page, that's your thing, but according to the technicians that i do know and work with from time to time, equipment is not the key to great mastering. So who is the ignorant? Jrod2 17:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you suggest we decide who is an authority besides publications and accolades? How do you propose we talk about analog equipment versus digital equipment without talking about equipment? Illuminatedwax 04:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is an easy answer to that question. On one side you have the analog manufacturing industry claiming that digital equipment can not deliver a "professional" sound for a "Grammy" award winning production. On the other hand, digital software developers and hardware like DigiDesign, claim that now with HD, that argument is been won over in favor of digital technology. Supposedly, digital exceeds the best analog specifications. I believe that, it's not equipment at the end of the day what is going to achieve the ultimate sound for any given production but the engineering. What you use to get it done is in my view, irrelevant, but how you used the equipment, is the secret to that great sound. One more thing, we are assuming that you are working with the best equipment available on both technologies. Jrod2 11:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, and on Wikipedia, we should tell people about this debate. The catch with Wikipedia is that we can't just put our opinions up on the page — we have to prove that it accurately reflects industry opinion. That's why we have to put the names of leading engineers on Wikipedia, because it's a good way to show the current state of the industry. When an industry leader says something about that industry, that carries a lot more weight than some Wikipedian asserting it. And how do we show who the leaders are besides accolades, publications, and influence? Illuminatedwax 13:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I sure hope that you don't consider Bob Ludwig to NOT be an authority on the subject of mastering. He is commonly regarded as being a legend in the Mastering industry as his list of highly successful mastered albums is huge. Also, speaking of Ludwig, I recently attended a clinic of his where he stated that knowing how different gear sounds and what sonic characteristics it holds is one of the most important skills a good mastering engineer has. True that gear is not the "key to great mastering"; but it is a very important aspect of the profession. I also apologize if I am overdue in the debate of Mastering and the Loudness War and therefore disregard this comment as I do not wish to stir up people.--Phil McGowan (user:PhilyG) 04:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Phil, Thanks for your comments. Mr. Ludwig is a known mastering guy, he has mastered lots of music and he has won awards. Do I think he is the best? NO. Do I think what he does is amazing? NO. Is everything he does excellent? NO. Do I care about his view that "the sound of gear is key to great mastering"? NO. He doesn't know what he is talking about. Analog gear is overrated. It has to be, otherwise, that industry would collapse, thousands of engineers and pro studios would lose fair market value on their investments. Many engineers are in love with the feel and look of the gear no different than people who love vintage automobiles. There is a denial in the mastering community about the state of digital. The majority will have you believe that their "great vintage" equipment or latest Manley compressor, will give that warmth and sweetness to the mix that command Grammy awards and nominations. It's all rubbish. Most mastering engineers who operate at a very high professional level, have a hard time making a mediocre mix sound good and within professional standards, in fact they suck at it (Don't ask how I know). Thus, if any musicians recording in their garage, home or project studio read this, please don't waste your money on Bernie Grundman, Bob Katz, Bob Ludwig, Doug Sax and other famous engineer. You will notice that the work is not as good as some online facilities (No awards and expensive real state) that charge about the same or less than them, but just do outstanding work. Online facilities like XARC in Germany are on the cutting edge. For me to accept these "big name" mastering engineers technical prowess, they would have to master a mediocre mix (Supplied by me) and then I would have to hear the results myself so as to really tell if they know the craft as they advertise. Otherwise, I don't care about Bob Ludwig or any other "major" mastering engineer's view. Please, don't get me wrong, I do believe that they know the craft, the difference is that times have changed, music is no longer controlled by recoding labels, artists now have the power to make their own recordings and many of these mixes are less than good or nowhere near as good, unlike the projects "big" label mastering guys are accostumed to receive. These guys are going through a transition period with their own abilities and the music business in general. If they don't embrace digital at almost all stages of the mastering process, they will regret it one day. Digital can cut their production time in almost half. This is important if you have to reduce your income to stay competitive but preserving the quality of the work. Finally, we have several clients (Can't mention their names, so don't ask) that left Sony Studios to do mastering with us. Their common explanation was that thy heard no difference between our work and the Sony studio mastering engineers but our fees were less than half of what they paid for at Sony and although we feel sorry that Sony studio is out of business here in Manhattan, who is to say that we didn't contribute in a small way to their demise? Have a good evening, Phil. Jrod2 02:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)