User talk:Evinatea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Evinatea, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Contents

[edit] Mastering

Thans for the explanation. I am glad we are talking and I believe that will yield a good outcome. My edit resulted in this paragraph, sans links:

"From the 1950s until the advent of digital recording in the late 1980s, the mastering process typically went through several stages. Once the studio recording on multi-track tape was complete, a final monophonic (one track) or stereo (two track) mix was prepared using the best take—or a combination of takes—and copied to the master tape."

The point about multiple takes was not that multiple versions were sent for mastering, but rather, that via editing, multiple takes could be combined to make the best version prior to mastering. A famous version of that, of course, is "Strawberry Fields Forever", but there are thousands more. The multiple takes part was related to "mix" in "a final ... mix was prepared using the best take—or a combination of takes—and copied to the master tape." I thought it was a worthy addition, given the tape-splicing that occurred in the era being discussed. Anyway, I don't think the multiple takes thing has to be there, and I am satisfied with the current version which was lightly edited from what you wrote. John Cardinal 19:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Start Over

Hi, it's me again. Let me give you a little tip. I noticed you removed the content from your talk page in order to "start again", as you said in your edit summary. You might want to "archive" the discussion, in order to have access to it any time you want. Copy this comment and the ones above this (except the welcoming message), revert your talk page to the state it was before removing the content, paste at the bottom of the page and archive. I personally don't know how to archive, but you can ask at the Village Pump.--Orthologist 22:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


Hey, Orthologist.

Thanks for the comment. I "saved" all the contents for future reference to a .txt file. Isn't that good enough? As for archiving, I am not sure how to either. Have a nice weekend. Evinatea 23:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to save it to a .txt file since it's still stored on Wikipedia under the History tab, as I'm sure you've figured out by now. Here's a link to instructions for archiving your page, though: Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page. I let User:Shadowbot3 archive mine automatically, for example. — Omegatron 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for responding

Hello Selket,

Please remove your comments left on the dBFS talk page (and re post the help me tag), as it helps confuse the issue.

If you don't understand, go to dBFS talk page and read the entire events that took place from March 9.

BTW: This page (dBFS) has been sitting too long with these redundant links that only offer a convenient way to promote those sites and provide little value:

  1. Rane pro audio reference definition of dBFS
  2. Jim Price's "Understanding dB"

Isn't this clear enough?


If you are an administrator, take action. Remove those suspicious links. Thanks Evinatea 08:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now reviewed the edit history of the DBFS article and I understand your frustration. Nonetheless, {{helpme}} on the article talk page is not the right place to raise this issue. If you believe you are being unfairly treated by an admin, the place to bring it up is WP:ANI. I cannot, however, find where Omegatron even mentioned being an administrator, much less claimed to be able to dictate content as a result. If you can back up this allegation you should; otherwise, remember to assume good faith. --Selket Talk 08:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: dBFS needs your intervention

Hello Fang Aili,

You are still welcome to participate in crime fighting on Wikipedia's audio pages along with me.

Here is another situation, this time an administrator is involved. And BTW, can administrators be so arrogant and even indifferent when a mere user raises many valid points? Shouldn't they respond? (Just in case, I am not talking about you, so please read on).

You be the judge and go to the dBFS talk page. I warn you it will take a little investigating on your part.

Hope we still a team.

This is what I left at the dBFS talk page:

This page (dBFS) has been sitting too long with these redundant links that only offer a convenient way to promote those sites and provide little value:

  1. Rane pro audio reference definition of dBFS
  2. Jim Price's "Understanding dB"

The definition of dBFS, is already covered by the page definition. Removal action is advised at once.

Administrator Omegatron has arbitrarily re-posted these links with no explanation other than he is an administrator (See his talk page on March 9) User_talk:Omegatron#dBFS.

Since he has failed to respond, and in order to avoid being blocked by this administrator, I ask another one to take a look at this and take immediate action. Evinatea 08:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Evinatea. Honestly I didn't see anything wrong with the links, and I would have let them stand if it was my place to say. But then again I don't know much about the subject matter. Regarding your interaction with Omegatron, it appears that both of you failed to assume good faith, somewhat. Next time, instead of challenging an editor, just ask a question politely. Don't accuse people of vandalism. Also, admins do not mediate content matters. Wikipedia works by consensus, and not just the consensus of admins. The next time you have a conflict with an editor, discuss it on the talk page instead of reverting that person (reverting multiple times is called "edit warring").
About the older matter, I admit I just let the situation go. I kept getting confused the the links and the.. well, the everything, and I decided that life was too short to stress over it. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 13:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Fang Aili, you missed the point again. Those links were not adding any value and were indeed being used to promote 2 sites. Why can't you see that this is a problem at Wikipedia on hundreds of pages and be more skeptical with these external links?
Anyway, somebody else helped on the matter and got rid of these links already. If you think they should be brought back, you are welcome to state your explanations. BTW, there was no "War" editing, just an arrogant administrator trying to intimidate a user like me.
Good faith is a general term used to describe a conduct that a person must exercise at all times. However, good faith starts with politeness and an open mind.
Explain why this administrator has not bothered to reply to me. Then ask yourself, who should exercise "Good faith". Fang, if you choose to investigate the events, then remember to read everything containing the subject matter.
I realize that since I joined Wikipedia, it appears as if I came in to confront everybody, but it's really not so. I am a good catalyst, if someone has a problem with me, chances are that they are not coming from a place of truth.
You offered archiving my talk page. That would be helpful. Thanks and talk to you soon. Evinatea 16:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
If you do not want my opinion, please don't ask for it. I don't care about those links, and I'll let the people who do care come to a consensus about what to do. This is a simple case of 2 or 3 editors disagreeing. You did not assume good faith when you accused Omegatron of vandalism; that is a serious accusation. The right thing to do would have been to discuss it. As far as I can tell, he has responded to you here, and hasn't tried to revert the link removal at dBFS. So what is the problem? --Fang Aili talk 16:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving your talk page

If you like, I can help you archive your talk page for you. Let me know if you'd like me to go ahead. You don't have to archive it, but the advantage is that you can easily review older comments. Look at one of my archives as an example. --Fang Aili talk 13:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explaining my input

The external links seem pretty harmless, but they have been edited in and out a couple times, and 1 editor (can't recall who) has asked for intervention from admin's twice. People are quoting wikipolicy at each other, and calling names. The edit summaries give the impression that people are unhappy at best and maybe angry or worse. All this over a couple external links? From my point of view, the links are harmless. Stay or go, I don't care much. What I want to know is, why are editors so hot about it?

  • Is there some characteristic of the external sites that has people hot under the color?
  • Are any of the wiki editors affiliated with one or the other of the sites, or a competing site?
  • ... or what?

Whether or not there is a subtext to this dispute, all concerned should realize (A) there are bigger problems with that article, such as the complete lack of citations, and (B) there are poor articles spread all-over the audio, recording, etc. articles. My advice is, ignore the link issue and go fix a more important problem with an article. I am not speaking to you, I am speaking in general. John Cardinal 03:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


Hello John, You said:

"Are any of the wiki editors affiliated with one or the other of the sites, or a competing site?

  • ... or what?"

I speak for myself, and If I was trying to promote something, I would have posted a link pointing to another site. But I didn't. Why? Because dBFS as an audio engineering term, its definition was already there on the page.

It's a term that means a signal fluctuates between 2 quantization points, one being the lowest closer to the floor level and the maximum or the highest transient, call it a peak, reached the top of the headroom (-0dBFS). That's what it is in a nut shell. And it doesn't need to take you to other sites to tell you exactly the same thing. Got it?

That's the issue.

What should really be avoided is allowing sites to put faq pages as reference for little terms like dBFS.

I actually proposed the term to be merged along with dB and dBFSD. All in one page.

Clearly, I am NOT pushing a link to promote anything, so you can't possibly say that I am a suspect of spam or whatever, if that's what you are referring to here. Have a nice evening. Evinatea 03:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I was not accusing anyone of link spam. I followed those links and they include definitions that support the article. As I said, I am curious why there is so much heat about this. One completely-contrived example would have been that one of the links was to a page on the site of a company that customers have accused of bad-faith business practices.
It doesn't matter if the meaning of the term is relatively simple, and it doesn't matter (in general) whether the term is defined on its own page or as part of another page. "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source" is just below the edit box in Wikipedia and it applies to simple content whoe meaning is not in dispute as well as content whose meaning is complex and/or disputed. I think of it this way: Wikipedia is not about recording facts; Wikipedia is about recording evidence, and the source of the evidence must be described so that a researcher can find it and evaluate it if necessary. As I said originally, the external links include simple definitions of the term that and my suggestion is to convert them to citations. If suitable definitions are available from more reliable sources, then the citations can be modified. John Cardinal 13:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Update: I see you have incorrectly summarized what I wrote in the "Explaining my input" section above, and referred to it out of context, on the [[talk page for user Selket. Please see my response there. Also remember that my original question was, is there a subtext of which I am not aware? You didn't understand that and asked for an explanation. The explanation is above. Sheesh. John Cardinal 14:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please calm down

Again, I do understand your frustration, and I am on your side in the content dispute. Please cool it though with the threats and wikilawyering. You hurt your argument, not strengthen it when you do this. We will continue to try to reach a consensus with the other editors, but you make that harder by threatening everyone who disagrees with you. --Selket Talk 08:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music mastering

I'm starting to read through the dispute surrounding Audio mastering. Three things:

  1. You started Music mastering and are essentially the only contributor. It clearly covers the same subject matter as audio mastering and should either be merged with it or deleted. Both you and Mark seem to agree on the talk page that it should be deleted. If you agree, and there is nothing in that article that isn't already covered in audio mastering, just say so here and I can speedy delete it immediately without any more fuss.
  2. You might want to edit your user page to make it clear who you are (Edward Vinatea) and what you do (Chief Mastering Engineer of MusicMasteringOnLine.com), so people don't think you have something to hide.
  3. Please relax and stop making personal attacks or you will get yourself blocked. I suggest taking a break from Talk:Audio mastering altogether. Relax. Listen to some music.  :-) — Omegatron 22:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


Dear Omegatron, First, thanks for the advise. As you see I have a lot more to lose if my antagonists get away with this elaborate hoax. I would look really bad personally and professionally if I don't defend myself and present the facts as they are.

Second, I welcome your changes to the audio mastering page, however, please don't get distracted with engineering terms right now, you can always do that later. Investigate, follow the path of the IP addresses. All the answers will be revealed to you. And keep in mind what Mr. Selket stated on your talk page. Nothing is a coincidence. These users have motive and opportunity to do what they did to that audio mastering page.

They used my initial mistakes (When I made my first edits) to create confusion and to divert attention from the main issue. Then, they tried to get rid of me when they realized that no way I was going to let them re-post links. That's why there is so much about "Evinatea spammer", etc, etc.

Third, please delete the "music mastering" page. I didn't do it before for not knowing the significance of the tags that administrator Fang Aili placed and left there. So yeah, just delete it. We don't need that page anymore.

I am now going to listen to some music :) Evinatea 00:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. — Omegatron 00:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of sockpuppetry

I've moved your personal attacks and sockpuppetry accusations into your userspace (User:Evinatea/Sockpuppetry) so they aren't disrupting the article's talk page anymore. If you want to continue the dispute, the correct place is Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets. — Omegatron 23:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evinatea is threatening other users in addition to spamming

Here is what Evinatea posted on my userpage:
"..doesn't matter at this point We are watching you too." Evinatea 17:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't enough that you got yourself banned from Audio Mastering page, but now you are threatening me. Read this Wikipedia:Civility--Biggy P 05:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

He isn't "banned" from the Audio Mastering page. Only the Arbitration Committee can do that. But the sockpuppetry rants don't belong there.
And yes, please read through Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. — Omegatron 03:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected Omegatron. The rants were banned from Talk:Audio_mastering (or shal I say removed) but he isn't banned as wikipedia user. I removed my excessive comments. I sometimes overreact when I'm threatened.--Biggy P 05:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


Threats? Oh, Please give it up "Artmastering" studio! What I meant by "watching" it's just that. The minute you revert your spamming links for the "Art Sayoki" studio, someone at the Wikiproject Sound Production (if not myself) will delete them right back. Evinatea 09:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like another threat because any real wikipedian would consider the context and supporting evidence before blindly deleting anything.--Biggy P 10:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. At the end of the day, your spamming links have ceased to exist. Period. End of the story. The only evidence that is truly being supported here (See User:Evinatea/Sockpuppetry) , is the fact that your "artmastering" studio is the biggest spammer that there ever was. Bigger than Vestman, bigger than Audioplexus and bigger than DRT mastering combined, OK? "Biggy" Jesus! Evinatea 12:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. — Omegatron 14:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Evinatea, please do not delete my original comments from talk pages as this violates wikipedia policy. I placed them here in response to your threats and accusation. If you feel embarrassed, then in the future please consider potential consequences of your actions before you threaten other editors. I strongly encourage you again to read Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks --Biggy P 06:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    The above comment was placed by--Biggy P 10:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC) in responce to two acts of deletion of my comments commited by user Evinatea on 23:00, 23 March 2007 [1] and again on 12:25, 23 Mar 2007 [2]


[edit] Substantiation of spamming by Edward Vinatea, as per your request on my talk page

You requested substantiation of your spamming, so here it is:

  • 1. Here are your very first edits at wikipedia. SPAM !
Link to your company
  • 2. Your spam on Audio mastering talk page was so disruptive that it was removed and you were told to stop.
TAKE A GOOD LOOK: Spam alert - user Evinatea aka Edward Vinatea
  • 3. Here is a list of your suspected sock puppets:
English Sock
Spanish Sock
  • 4. Here is a title of spam article you created to promote your business:
"MximumDeliveryPotential" - (Already deleted!)
  • 5. Here is your recently exposed, RIDICULOUS SPAM IN SPANISH!
First Spanish Spam
Second Spanish Spam

And don't claim that those are beginner's mistakes because your spam on audio mastering talk page ended only a few days ago, and that only because of an action taken by the administrator. And if that ridiculous spam in Spanish was truly a beginner's mistake, as you claim, then you had plenty of time to fix it from the moment you acknowledged it, till today. BUT YOU DIDN'T . End even after it was pointed out to you yesterday you didn’t take any action to fix it and it had to be finally corrected by Spanish Editor.


"And don't claim that those are beginner's mistakes because your spam on audio mastering talk page ended only a few days ago

Your accusation here needs to be substantiated with proof, Sir. So, since you seem to know so much, show everyone the date of the creation of said page. 71.247.67.27 16:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Oh, and if by any chance I'm wrong and all this was really done by your employee, then it is still your responsibility as the owner of this company.

NOW EDWARD, GO AND DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE, AND STOP THREATENING ME, AND STOP SPAMMING.

Truly yours--Biggy P 23:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)



"Biggy P", Edward has no time to waste responding to frivolous accusations and personal attacks by you or anybody else and certainly not by people who hide behind anonymous IP addresses and pseudo names.

But, it has to be said that Evinatea did not delete the Spanish page because he didn't have knowledge of its existence and was not personally involved. We have a person in mind, but we are unable to confirm it.

Nevertheless, the Evinatea account admitted from the beginning that the creation of the mastering page was an error in judgment due to the lack of knowledge of the rules at Wikipedia, and so, all name references and links were promptly removed.

Clearly, only a person or persons totally ignorant to these rules would create a page, and put name, title and place of work.

Everybody sees that, except a group of editors that have been made aware by others a year ago or so, of their own editing activities that was creating a huge conflict of interest.

Biggy P, why didn't you remove the Spanish page yourself? Who cares, but don't go saying that by not removing the page, it proves Evinatea guilty of spam.

The bottom line is that, we are serious about making sure that the audio mastering page remains free of spam. The only proof we have is, that best to our knowledge, the Evinatea account has not posted any links anywhere after the creation of the alleged spam pages.

Evinatea regrets that, accusations and personal attacks were made in trying to prove something that may never be proved and would like the return of civility by all the participants.

There should be no more links on the audio mastering pages though, this way this case will be finally closed for all the editors that at one point or another, were trying to convince the rest that reference links are necessary to expand on the article about mastering .

So, let's all have a pleasant editing day. Evinatea 12:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's me, again... sad to see you've been accused of nearly everything. Sockpuppetry, deliberate spamming, trolling and other horrendous actions. All those accusations are completely based on nothing. You were told to keep a cool head, and I saw you've been doing it ever since. My sympathies.--Orthologist 21:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/v/i/User_talk%7EEvinatea_5bd1.html"