User talk:Riprowan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] November 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Loudness war. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I have made a RfC to get a final resolution about your external link . Please stop making assumptions about what I do in WP and don't make personal attacks. Also implying that editors are "Monkeys" is not becoming from a magazine "editor". Thank you. Jrod2 16:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Over The Limit"
Believe or not, prior to all that talk you left on my user page, I had determined that you are notable enough to be considered noteworthy and therefore reinstated the link. However, if another editor deletes your link again, you are on your own, please take it up with them. For the record, I never targeted you or have anything against you or your site. I am WP:CVU and follow all WP guidelines best as I can . Your link was deleted twice and I merely enforced the deletion of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrod2 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Rip Rowan, as you see another user deleted your link. It's the same editor (I believe) that removed you in the first place. Yes, I Proded "Loudness" war" and when the discussion was over in favor to keep, I archived all the comments. You have made personal attacks against me and accusations of not assuming good faith. Well, you've been barking at the wrong tree. I have actually helped you by doing an RfC and re-instated your link "unilaterally". It looks like you now want to make WP your home and even joined WP:CVU. Please, I hope you are not here to make a mockery of us people who care about Wikipedia and don't want to exploit it in anyway. The main problem (IMHO) Rip, is that you own ProRec.com and you are not just a publisher who gets paid for writing articles there. Isn't that what you've said to everyone? Whatever it is, it will unravel. Let's just wait and see what the other editors say. I am going to assume good faith and let the process take its own course to come to a determination. I am not going to confront user GlassFET, I don't want this to go on in circles. We've caused enough disruption to the article's talk page by making long and tedious to read comments. Good night, Sir. Jrod2 02:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Rip, I don't have all the answers as to why those sites and pages were included. They were posted by other editors. If I recall correctly, the Diament article was included because the man was an ex-Beatles' engineer, the YouTube video because of a guideline loophole, CuteStudio, by final judgment of an admin at "Third Opinion". I also don't have time to convince you of anything. However, did you check WP:Conflict_of_interest? Most specificly, did you read this section at the second paragraph? (please, I am not suggesting that this what you are here for, only that it might be the perception by others). I am also leaving this for you to read. Start with this. It might explain why GlassFET (who is mainly an anti-spam editor) is not accepting your link using the argument of being a "blog". But, he might use that guideline next. Then, read "Writing about subjects close to you". Find this: "When writing about subjects that are close to you, don't use your own personal knowledge of the subject, and don't cite yourself, your web site, or the subject's web site. Instead, use what is written about the subject by other people, independently, as your sources. Cite those sources in your very first edit. If you don't have such sources, don't write.". One more thing, writing about a subject close to you doesn't necessarily only apply to your biography or your company. These are mere examples. So, if you are an audio engineer, don't write about audio and use your own article to reference it. This may still apply to your case even if you never had contributed to "Loudness war" (See COI paragraph #1 and your only contribution. Honestly, I doesn't look good for you. I also didn't make these guidelines and I admit they can be very confusing. I hope this helps to clarify in some way your confusion. Jrod2 08:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- In essence Rip, the Wikipedia foundation' admins and guideline keepers like editors to edit and contribute on a wide variety of subjects and topics, but require citations from verifiable sources and most importantly, notable people. If you are into audio, you can help copyedit or add important points that have been omitted from an article, even start your own, but again, you need to be careful with issues of neutrality and COI. How you get around you to reinstate your link (within WP guidelines) will be tricky. I have an idea, contact the person who used your link as a reference and ask him if he could re-post the link. Once you get that done, take GlassFET's contention that your link is a "blog" to WP:Third_opinion. If only one editor (most likely an admin) agrees with you, there are no guidelines that will prevent that link from staying posted forever. Otherwise, you left me a message saying that you won't contribute to LW so as to be in line with SPAM guidelines. I say, don't worry, you can still contribute some facts to the LW that you've learned from another source. As long as you cite the source, you will not be violating any guidelines. I know guidelines can be confusing sometimes at WP, but you'll get the hang of it. Jrod2 19:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Rip, I don't have all the answers as to why those sites and pages were included. They were posted by other editors. If I recall correctly, the Diament article was included because the man was an ex-Beatles' engineer, the YouTube video because of a guideline loophole, CuteStudio, by final judgment of an admin at "Third Opinion". I also don't have time to convince you of anything. However, did you check WP:Conflict_of_interest? Most specificly, did you read this section at the second paragraph? (please, I am not suggesting that this what you are here for, only that it might be the perception by others). I am also leaving this for you to read. Start with this. It might explain why GlassFET (who is mainly an anti-spam editor) is not accepting your link using the argument of being a "blog". But, he might use that guideline next. Then, read "Writing about subjects close to you". Find this: "When writing about subjects that are close to you, don't use your own personal knowledge of the subject, and don't cite yourself, your web site, or the subject's web site. Instead, use what is written about the subject by other people, independently, as your sources. Cite those sources in your very first edit. If you don't have such sources, don't write.". One more thing, writing about a subject close to you doesn't necessarily only apply to your biography or your company. These are mere examples. So, if you are an audio engineer, don't write about audio and use your own article to reference it. This may still apply to your case even if you never had contributed to "Loudness war" (See COI paragraph #1 and your only contribution. Honestly, I doesn't look good for you. I also didn't make these guidelines and I admit they can be very confusing. I hope this helps to clarify in some way your confusion. Jrod2 08:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Rip Rowan, as you see another user deleted your link. It's the same editor (I believe) that removed you in the first place. Yes, I Proded "Loudness" war" and when the discussion was over in favor to keep, I archived all the comments. You have made personal attacks against me and accusations of not assuming good faith. Well, you've been barking at the wrong tree. I have actually helped you by doing an RfC and re-instated your link "unilaterally". It looks like you now want to make WP your home and even joined WP:CVU. Please, I hope you are not here to make a mockery of us people who care about Wikipedia and don't want to exploit it in anyway. The main problem (IMHO) Rip, is that you own ProRec.com and you are not just a publisher who gets paid for writing articles there. Isn't that what you've said to everyone? Whatever it is, it will unravel. Let's just wait and see what the other editors say. I am going to assume good faith and let the process take its own course to come to a determination. I am not going to confront user GlassFET, I don't want this to go on in circles. We've caused enough disruption to the article's talk page by making long and tedious to read comments. Good night, Sir. Jrod2 02:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
