User talk:GlassFET

Welcome!

Hello GlassFET! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing!  Netsnipe  ►  16:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The "perfect" article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Note

I clear items from my talk page after I've read them. Removal of the item means that I've read it, whether or not I reply to it. GlassFET 17:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

POV and Roger Russel in Audiophile article

Given the section was about criticisms, of course it takes a point of view. To be honest, I don't quite understand your reservations about including the details. When I read his essay, I saw that he backs up his position with examples, and documents McIntosh Labs' experiences and measurements. It's also difficult to believe that a person with his training and experience (not to mention the company he worked for), would be unfairly biased. McIntosh equipment is pretty much audiophile grade which is why his critiques are all the more compelling. I'm inclined to restore much of the material unless you can explain why a section on criticism of audiophile marketing, cannot be more explicit without being POV. I'll add this comment to the talk page as well if you'd like continue the discussion there. Regards. Bruno23 21:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the light touch on the editing this time 'round. Have a good one. Bruno23 20:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Blog

ProRec is not a blog. We use a blogging app as our CMS. That does not make it a blog. All articles are subject to peer review just like Mix Mag or any other source. By definition (see Blog), practically every source in WP comes from a blog and is therefore unacceptable. Please see my comments here.

By WP definition, these links and sources should also be removed on the basis that the source is a blog:

- Mix Mag
- Stereophile
- The Times
- Barry Diament
- You Tube video
- PerformerMag
- Austin360
- Stylus
- EBU articles

Please see the definition, I'm sure you'll see that it applies to all of these sources. I intend to argue this point vehemently, since I think it's very poorly defined and therefore a source of serious WP conflict.

Finally, if ProRec is a blog, then the requirement is that the author is "noteworthy", which I in fact am.

Please await the response on the RfC. Thanks for being polite. Riprowan 23:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Jrod2 suggested that others (perhaps yourself) may see me as a spammer. I agree that my presence around this article could create a 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 WP "How not to be a spammer" [1] guideline so if we're all about following the guidelines, I'd say I'm setting a very good example for others.

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. Isn't fair play and good faith the underlying value here? Riprowan 15:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no further opinion about this. I've taken the article off my watchlist. I find your shameless self-promotion in this matter and on your user page distasteful, but that's simply a matter of taste, which varies between individuals. As I'm sure you know, adding the link yourself would be considered spamming and the link would most likely be removed. The place to lodge your arguments for inclusion of the link is the talk page of the article. And you'd need to achieve a consensus with the active editors of the page, not simply convince a single editor to insert the link, if you wish for the insertion to be stable. And that's pretty much all I have to say on the matter. GlassFET 17:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Five_Rites.jpg

I uploaded a full copy of the image that you questioned & added fair use for both uses. If you have any comments, they'd be appreciated! SkierRMH (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback on this. However, there are extremely limited exceptions to "only place a book cover is fair use is in an article specifically about the book." From Wikipedia:Non-free content; "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." For example; an author page (not in the infobox for the author for ID purposes - I pull those out and/or flag them non-free whenever I find them), where there's a section devoted to the book that does not have its own article, but all of the information is included (with infobox) therein. There's a book cover used specifically not on its own article that has fair use. The real grey area comes in images such as this, does the "critical commentary" in the article justify the use of the image, which is why there's these discussions. Upon further thought, it probably is pretty weak herein, and should be removed. Further thoughts before I do that? SkierRMH (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Lojong

You have made several edits to this page, most of which seem not to be particularly helpful and some of which have removed useful information (which I and others have mostly reinstated.) Do you have actual subject-matter knowledge? Because if you do, there are many respects in which the article could be improved (e.g. creating pages for some of the red links) but what you have been doing up to now has mostly not improved the article in any obvious way.

1. Please add new comments at the bottom of a talk page.
2. Please sign your comments with ~~~~ so I know who to reply to.
3. You misread my change, I did not remove the new category, I removed the old less accurate category Category:Buddhism
4. This is indeed the correct thing to do, read WP:CAT for infomation on how Wikipedia categories work.

GlassFET 16:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Didn't get an answer on whether you have actual subject matter knowledge 63.229.11.118 (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI

FYI: User:Thegone has started a thread about you on AN: [2]. The thread is pretty incomprehensible, but they seem very unhappy... --barneca (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)