User talk:Quiest

What is the dispute in the article Audio Engineering? Why did you put that tag? Andrarias 00:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Audio mastering, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The pattern of editing you are using indicate that you disapprove of most anything written about audio at WP. Well, don't put tags, instead raise consensus of your opinions and disagreements (if you have any) and take it to those articles talk pages. Otherwise, next time you'll be tagged as a vandal. Jrod2 00:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Contributions (which I took a look at before making such a claim) seem to beg to differ (at least in my opinion). However, if you disagree, that's okay with me, it's your right :-). Bmg916^Speak 22:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can tell, you have made no other edits to Michael Bay aside from slapping a couple of tags on the article. After a quick glance at your contribution history, it seems that this is your usual manner of editing. Doing this is not constructive to articles, and is generally frowned upon. You made no effort to address your concerns by editing the article, but rather expect someone else to do it. You haven't even explained what about the article you object to specifically. Therefore, I have reverted your edit to the Bay article, though not the others as I do not edit those. Rest assured that there is nothing personal in my reversion, and I meant you no offense. However, I would ask that in the future you attempt to fix articles you find objectionable rather than just hitting them with unexplained and unnecessary tags. They're an eyesore, and should only be used in rare circumstances. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 22:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, your reply kind of confused me. haha But I'll try to answer. For those of us who are editors of a certain article, it can be insulting when a new editor comes along and tags an article without trying to improve it or even explaining why they feel the tags are necessary. Personally, I only watch the Michael Bay article because it is a frequent target for vandalism; I'm not a fan of his work at all. I am pretty happy with the way the article reads, and I would be the first to make a change if the article read like an advertisement, which was one of the tags you used (I forget what the other was). We can be sure that a high-profile director like Bay has a lot of editors keeping an eye on the article, both fans of his work and those who are not. If there was some glaring problem with the article, chances are it would be addressed by a regular. Like I said before, those tags are pretty ugly, and are usually reserved for the worst of articles. For articles which are in pretty good shape, it's more appropriate to tag a single sentence than the entire article (though just fixing the problem is obviously preferable). If you feel strongly that a drastic change is needed for an article, you should start a discussion on the article's talk page and see if others agree with you. I hope this made some sense, I'm sort of rambling here. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 19:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. I don't have any problems with audio or it's discussion, but I DO have a problem with your "writing". If you want to sound like you know what you're talking about, back it up. Contrary to what you may believe, your word is NOT law! Amazing, I know. I am going to post this on the other contributions I made, so that you "don't DARE" tag me as a vandal. Thanks!

First, get used to signing up your comments with 4 tildes. Second, lower your tone, Pal. I am in the business. It's stated on my user page, You?. You want respect, give it first. And have respect for the dozens of people who have contributed to all those articles unlike you who thinks knows so much, yet I don't see no knowledge emanating from you. Third, I am not going to tolerate insolence. So, when you say that you have a problem with my "writing", your insulting me by placing quotes on the word writing. It's obvious and obvious to many. Personal attacks are not going to get you anywhere, Sir. Quote "my writing" so we can discuss it, otherwise, it will be considered a personal attack. You still want to talk within reason?, you have one more chance. Jrod2 23:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jrod2 23:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors like you did here [1]; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. You should spend more time making contributions rather than"studying" my history. I doubt Ludwig would engage editors in the manner you just did. In the big picture, you are irrelevant to me and to WP. But, I caution you to stop your method of "contributing" as most editors hate what you are doing. As for you being an engineer, famous or not, go ahead, enter the discussions on all those audio related article pages you want to change. I'll join you right in. See if you get people to come in consensus to your believes as to how articles should be written. If you are a man of course. If you don't like my "writing" as you said, I don't care, but "Mr. engineer", just so you know, my teacher also learned from another mastering guy, a legend whose name is Dick Charles. So, he himself too was a student, duh? Jrod2 00:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Also, accusing someone of making a personal attack, doesn't constitute in itself one. This means, you don't tag someone for tagging you of uncivil. I am sorry if the expression "If you are a man" made you uncomfortable. I use this expression to call up on a man's honesty. It usually works. Now, Your provocative words have no effect on me, Sir. They are just words, and yes, I do feel adequate and confident on my contributions to WP as I happen to work with, and for several knowledgeable engineers in the music industry. You on the other hand, present yourself as having a wealth of information about audio, well, we can't wait long enough to read about it through your contributions. Finally, as long as you stop from tagging unnecessarily those articles that I and other editors care about, you can go right on doing your "stuff" at WP so ignore my well intentioned warnings. Jrod2 07:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yes, I have kept editing Ronald Kaplan because I believe it's a biography of a very important member of the (computational) linguistics community. I had done simply a stub a while back, cos' this is not really my area of expertise. I had thought I'd change a red link in Joan Bresnan's page to a blue one and let someone more competent would do the rest. Someone else promoted it from a stub to a full article, prematurely I believe, so when I saw a tag to wikify it, I went and changed some of the red links to blue links. (as I knew that wikipedia would already know about CSLI and ACM, for instance). Of course how notable a person is, is a subjective question and how to measure that quite a hard one, but I've thought the the contents of the entry made it clear that the subject is as noteworthy as other linguists with wikipedia entries, like Bresnan and Kay. If you are a linguist (especially a computational one) who thinks differently maybe you can tell me what's the criteria you're using for noteworthiness. Thanks, Valeria.depaiva 19:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]