Talk:Steve Hoffman (audio engineer)

message: I am a moderator on Steve Hoffman's forum. You have locked and protected the vandalized version of this page. Please revert to the correct edit. Thank you!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.75.34 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 31 December 2005
:Is this current version the correct edit? It doesn't seem to mention Hoffman's dismissal from MCA which is well sourced. For some reason someone at Wikipedia has kow-towed to a "moderator on Steve Hoffman's forum" which is not, of course, any kind of meaningful title and, in fact, smacks of quite a deal of bias. I actually think that this page should be deleted because removing sourced references just because "moderators" don't like them is pretty bad for Wikipedia's reputation.
90.198.230.215 20:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please explain further and link to the version you think is correct? Dmcdevit·t 20:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even after another pass from BorgHunter, there is still vandalism from User:audiophool. This might be the best version to revert to:  -- Mikeblas 21:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mikeblas is right on the money.  http://www.web-house.net/stevehoffman/ is Claus Cheng's URL. BradOlson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 23:38, 3 January 2006 (talk • contribs) 
===Explanation===   
I'll explain why I'm not restoring the Controversy section. The request for full-prot came up on RFPP and I investigated it, and found that an edit-war was going on in full swing. I immediately protected the article, not caring about what revision it was on.
Now the rub is that after I protected it, I got a request on my talk page requesting I restore the Controversy section. I reexamined the article history - and found that the edit-war was taking place on the Controversy section. As a result, I declined it because that would make me a party in an edit-war. After another request, I asked the edit-warriors that had posted on my talk page to bring it here to reach a consensus.
Admins are not supposed to use their powers to "win" content disputes for someone. Settle this here, please, and stop asking that I restore the section. -Jéské(v^_^v) 21:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I said settle it here.  Talk with the other parties; they may be willing to listen.  I'm not going to restore the section because it's the focus of the edit war, and I will not use admin powers to skew a dispute. -Jéské(v^_^v) 22:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The other parties have no interest in a consensus. They are merely acting to obscure documented evidence. Notice how we ASKED for discussion of this matter but they continued the edit war. Sidar 22:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might I suggest the aggrieved parties go to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard? If there is a conflict, that can be enough to warrant a block. -Jéské(v^_^v) 08:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Locked?

message: I'll explain why I'm not restoring the Controversy section. The request for full-prot came up on RFPP and I investigated it, and found that an edit-war was going on in full swing. I immediately protected the article, not caring about what revision it was on.
Now the rub is that after I protected it, I got a request on my talk page requesting I restore the Controversy section. I reexamined the article history - and found that the edit-war was taking place on the Controversy section. As a result, I declined it because that would make me a party in an edit-war. After another request, I asked the edit-warriors that had posted on my talk page to bring it here to reach a consensus.
Admins are not supposed to use their powers to "win" content disputes for someone. Settle this here, please, and stop asking that I restore the section. -Jéské(v^_^v) 21:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said settle it here.  Talk with the other parties; they may be willing to listen.  I'm not going to restore the section because it's the focus of the edit war, and I will not use admin powers to skew a dispute. -Jéské(v^_^v) 22:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The other parties have no interest in a consensus. They are merely acting to obscure documented evidence. Notice how we ASKED for discussion of this matter but they continued the edit war. Sidar 22:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might I suggest the aggrieved parties go to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard? If there is a conflict, that can be enough to warrant a block. -Jéské(v^_^v) 08:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation

message: I've wondered how Hoffman makes remasters sound better than anyone else.  I wondered if it was some equipment he had that no one else had or something he did that no one else could do.  I just read the article and it says "keeping the signal simple and organic, rather than over-producing the recording by adding an unpleasant amount of compression, limiting and equalization. He does not use any digital-based noise reduction."  Why can't other engineers leave off compression, limiting, equalization, and digital noise reduction?   Bubba73 (talk), 02:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that he is very, VERY moderate about it. Unlike some records that you open on a sound editor and the waveform is a FULL FLAT FORM, ALL MAXED OUT. Ew. -- 201.9.5.212 (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How he does it? 

message: Currently this article reads like a resume with its laundry list of artists whose recordings were touched by Mr. Hoffman in some way. This article should be streamlined to read more like a proper encyclopedic entry. Otherwise, I will be placing a VfD upon this article as it is of negligible importance outside of a certain group of individuals. Sidar 18:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parsing Down the Article 

message: 
I request this page to be labeled with a "Conflict of interest" tag, since it is blatantly obvious Steve Hoffman's representatives are twisting the truth by deleting relevant information.
Requesting the following paragraph.
"This article is being constantly edited by Steve Hoffman's representatives, deleting information believed to be correct. Due to this fact, it's being labeled as "Conflict of interest" until this dispute is resolved".
ValerieSolanas 16:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An article can't be labeled conflicted.  Users, however, can be tagged as such with . -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for edit 

message: Hopefully, this article is NOT representative of the way Wikipedia handles information. There's FACTUAL proof for the  controversy section. There's AMPLE documentation proving each and every allegation. And just because a "representative" of Steve Hoffman demanded its removal and requested protection, Wikipedia editors did such a thing. Isn't this a place where knowledge is supposed to be shared? Are we to understand that if a group demands for any information to be removed, such a thing will be done? 
ValerieSolanas 16:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a joke 

message: Believing that the 'moderators' of Mr Hoffman's personal website do indeed have some sort of conflict of interest I have called for the page Steve Hoffman to be deleted: Conflict of Interest Kalowski 10:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict ot Interest 

message: I also recommend premanent removal of the Steve Hoffman entry from Wikipedia. My reasons are well documented below. Huberman 13:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: I removed the listing of artists that Mr. Hoffman has "remastered." Bob Ludwig only has a few examples of artists he has worked with, not 12 lines like Mr. Hoffman's entry. The information is misleading as well, it makes it appear that Mr. Hoffman has worked with each and every artist on the list, which is false. How do we know the information is correct anyway? Perhaps a source for each artist would be appropriate. Either way, the information is a bit extreme and does nothing to add to the entry. It would be ok to add a couple of artists that Mr. Hoffman has "remastered" and not every recording he has touched. George Martin's entry doesn't even do that. Huberman 15:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Artist List 

message: An explanation of MCA releasing Mr. Hoffman should be included in the article as Mr. Hoffman held an important position in the corporation (as evidenced by vault access). Evidence of this scandal is present in print form, as cited in a late 90s article by the Houston Press (link) and another article published in the late 80s concerning unreleased Buddy Holly recordings (yet to be found online). Please do not remove the "Controversy" section as citations will follow the statements printed within. Sidar 18:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy Surrounding Mr. Hoffman's Dismissal from MCA 

message: Please add new sections at the bottom of this page, and add new comments below earlier comments.  Editors are interjecting their comments here into discussions that are almost two years old. --Ronz 19:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note on talk page etiquette

message: This dispute has been added to the BLP noticeboard: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Steve_Hoffman Sidar 20:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Ronz 21:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographies of Living Persons/Noticeboard 

message: Homage/parody of stevehoffman.tv is a discussion forum, so should be removed per WP:EL. --Ronz 21:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: If Wikipedia editors will not accept a newspaper article as a point for discussion and entry of this section nor a published biography then there is no point in continuing this discussion. I have lost my faith in Wikipedia. If the said published biography was not an accpetable source then there would surely need to be an allegation of libel. As far as I am aware there is no evidence of this or of Mr. Steve Hoffman bringing any legal action towards Houston Press or the publishers of Now Dig This!
I have called for this Hoffman article to be deleted. Please see my entry Kalowski 10:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on all counts. With all due respect, Ronz is the strangest mod on Wikipedia I've ever encountered. He has been presented proof of every allegation, and instead of taking a stand and deciding on approving every sourced comment, he hides behind Wikipedia policy and his own criteria. If this is an indication of how wikipedia works, then this place is useless for serious research. EricGoberman 15:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mention above, this appears to be WP:POINT.  Editors are repeatedly arguing that if they cannot get the content they want into this article, then the article must be deleted. --Ronz 16:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors are repeatedly arguing that if the article doesn't include factually proven content because a Wikipedia moderator doesn't care about its contents, then the article is useless and could be deleted. EricGoberman 16:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: We're going round in circles - Please delete the article

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Hoffman. This article has been listed for deletion, but the appropiate template has not been added to the article. Thunderwing 13:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Listed for deletion

message: I haven't found many easily accessible articles about Hoffman (yet) but there appears to be more than enough to meet WP:BIO if one just does a search. Here's a sample of what I've found:
* Yarlung Records: A simple formula to record young musicians
* DISC JOCKEY MASTERS ARE THE DOMAIN OF PREMIUM CD GURU STEVE HOFFMAN
* Reissue roundup: Audio Fidelity's first reissue plus some Concord Jazz reissues from Groove Note and Pure Audiophile.(The Music)
* FINDING PURIST BLISS MUSIC 
--Ronz 15:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of your references is The LA Times. We are providing proof via Houston Times. What makes the LA Times somehow more authoritative than the Houston Times? EricGoberman 16:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to repeat myself, WP:BIO and WP:BLP are to completely different issues.  The article should not be deleted if it meets WP:BIO.  Content in the article must meet WP:BLP. --Ronz 16:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: People familiar with the audiophile industry have already stated Steve Hoffman misplaced the master tapes of Roy Orbison and Buddy Holly, and was fired from MCA as a result. That's one of the things he's famous for in the audiophile circles. This has been substantiated - apparently enough, not to your liking. EricGoberman 19:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep on topic per WP:TALK.  This section of the talk page is for discussion of possible references to add to the article.  Thanks! --Ronz 15:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible references

message: How about a source for the last paragraph of the entry:
While at MCA, Hoffman championed the idea that reissues of an artist's back catalog could be worthwhile and profitable for engineers, record companies and artists. His approach to remastering aims to endow each CD and vinyl record with what he calls "The Breath of Life" attained by avoiding compression, limiting and equalization. He does not use any digital-based noise reduction.   Huberman 20:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand.  Are you saying that it needs a source, or that you know of one? --Ronz 21:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose Huberman is asking to verify sources for the article in its current state. As it is, the article is full of unsourced statements. 200.38.162.11 22:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source for this statement seems to be . There's more on this subject in the reprint from Hoffman's feature in Tape Op magazine, a well respected magazine in the field of professional audio engineering. I would probably edit the statement from "avoiding compression, limiting and equalization" to "uses compression, limiting and equalization sparingly" to more accurately reflect the sources. dissolvetalk 17:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source for last paragraph?

message: Can someone please point out some evidence for the COI dispute? --Ronz 20:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MCow1 has been repeatedly deleting the "Controversy" section. User MCow1 (or MCow, I can't remember) is a moderator ("Gort") at the forum run by Steve Hoffman (www.stevehoffman.tv/forums; coincidentally enough, this is the moderator who banned me for posting the "Controversy" section at stevehoffman.tv) You can check this fact by yourself fairly quickly. I suppose this is evidence enough of COI. EricGoberman 01:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When did Mcow1 disclose this information?  --Ronz 03:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That he's an SH employee? His membership title indicates so - he's a "Gort", or a mod at his website. He edited the pages on Wikipedia under that exact same moniker. This information is not private or propietary - it can be verified by anyone interested. EricGoberman 14:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence of COI problems?

message: Please use this section to list sources and quotes from those sources that might be used to support a section in the article about the controversies surrounding Hoffman. --Ronz 16:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The houstonpress.com article can be used to establish notability, but there's not much there to write an article on.  Corvus cornix 02:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You better cite those fast if they're still on the live forums... Sidar 14:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy revisited

message: If you want to see the real motives behind why these people keep badgering Steve Hoffman, look no further than here:
http://stereocentral.tv/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=256&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
They have an axe to grind and are trying to do it through Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.38.205 (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I see there are people complaining about being banned from the Steve Hoffman forums because of the Wikipedia edits. Am I missing something? Besides, I thought forums, etc., weren't considered as proof of anything in Wikipedia. If anything, it supports the claim that Steve Hoffman moderators don't want the "Controversy" section to appear at Wikipedia, and are "punishing" their members for documenting it. BTW, most people have been signing their comments. Why aren't you signing yours? 189.146.91.36 12:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because he's LeeS, who is also a member of the Steve Hoffman's forums. EricGoberman 15:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I see nothing wrong with a discussion elsewhere about ignorant wiki editors. Sidar 14:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a strange page to link to. I see no 'real motives' there. Everyone is discussing and wondering why this page is protected. Perhaps the people on that site are the ones who want the controversy section returned. Well, they have made their agenda clear form the start. So the real motive behind why these people keep badgering Steve Hoffman is... they want the allegation of tape theft brought to light. Kalowski 14:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How long can these issues last? Will this article be permanently protected? Will it be deleted? EricGoberman 21:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real motives 

message: Here's some more information that may end this debate. This is definitive proof of the allegations made in the "Controversy" section, taken directly from the Steve Hoffman forums.
Steve Hoffman has been known to use illegal / pirated CD-R copies of his previous work in order to support his business / forum. These copies are made without regard to previous copyright holders, and have routinely gone for high prices.
In this thread, forum member Scott Jimenez, of Fullerton, CA., declares having bought a pirated CD-R copy of The Doors' "Soft Parade", mastered by Steve Hoffman, from Steve Hoffman himself, for $1,800 (one thousand, eight hundred dollars) describing himself as a "fool" for having done such a thing.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=1966599&postcount=591
(You'll need to be signed on the forums to look at the pictures).
If you look at the last images, you'll clearly see a TDK CD-R disc with handprinted text on it - irrefutable proof of Hoffman's "shady" activities.
It's quite possible the Steve Hoffman moderators will take down this post as soon as they can. I captured the images to my hard disk, and will post them somewhere else in order to verify this information.
EricGoberman 02:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say proof of the other issue (missing masters), but this definitely is another aspect of his controversial activities which should be noted at Wikipedia to provide a balanced view of Mr. Hoffman. Sidar 03:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also -check out the CD-R. It has Steve Hoffman's signature in it. EricGoberman 03:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DEFINITIVE proof / documentation regarding the Controversy issue 

message: OK, here's another source. Michael Fremer. Music Angle web site. Hope this is good enough for you. EricGoberman (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I'm tired of this.  You have to meet WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP.  Take it to WP:RSN or WP:BLPN. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I sincerely don't get it, Ronz. We are trying to substantiate the "Controversy" section so it suits your criteria. The rest of the article is completely unsubstantiated. Why, I must ask, do you insist on ignoring valid references? Do you know who Barry Diament is? Michael Fremer? Peter Mew? If you don't, then I'd respectfully suggest a new wiki admin is needed here - someone who knows about the music industry. EricGoberman (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm obviously not ignoring anything.  I am simply questioning the reliability of the sources, and have suggested a venue for resolving this dispute.  Please take it to WP:RSN or WP:BLPN. --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why we should take this issue to those instances. Fact is, anyone who knows who Mew, Fremer or Diament are knows that their reputation is beyond reproach. Their statements regarding Hoffman are 100% authoritative. What I'm starting to think is (and I do not mean to insult you) is that your ignorance in these areas is potentially damaging a 100% NPOV article. It would be like me trying to moderate an edit war regarding peritonitis - I'd have no clue as to what I'm doing.  EricGoberman (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Or a source for "reissues of an artist's back catalogue could be worthwile and profitable for engineers", or whether he avoids compression, limiting and equalization, or DNR. Fact is, that entire paragraph could have been pulled out of anyone's vivid imagination, and you (Ronz) aren't even asking for "sources", much less the "reliability" of said "sources". What is going on here??? EricGoberman (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More sources

message: I see Ronz sorting through sources and finding any Wikipedia policies to invalidate them. I see Jéské making M:TG references and imparting threats with his recent adminship. I see a few colorful characters embellishing the information on Steve Hoffman. -Sidar (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you mind not assuming bad faith, Sidar? -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck cleaning this mess up. Sidar (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As someone who has followed but not participated in the edits over the few months, I won't say that I assume 'bad faith' but I can't assume 'good faith' either.  Look at the points that Huberman, et al., pointed out above about the Biography section being completely POV and having zero (not even one) citation or reference. That section reads like a commercial for Hoffman's service.  No comment was made on the points that Huberman brought up.  Isn't there a way to bring in an unbiased editor (e.g. one without an agenda or axe to grind) to address these issues? A neutral party that can apply the same standards to the complete article and not just one portion that they don't like?  ExampleOfHumanBeing (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What Edit Warring?

message: It just occurred to me that the only discussion going on here is between a few people that believe the Steve Hoffman entry should include a Controversy section, or should be removed entirely, and a couple of admins. Where are the folks that believe the Controversy section should be removed? Why are they not adding their thoughts to this discussion? Very unusual. 
I believe these the admins should demand a more balanced discussion from this point on. It is absolutely ridiculous that no one is stating their case for why the Controversy section should remain, no one except Ronz that is. I believe we have a biased admin in our midst. Either way, there is no actual discussion going on here. Jeske asks for "everyone [to talk] it out and [come] to a consensus." Who should come to a consensus, Jeske? The only folks that seems to DISCUSS anything here are myself, Sidar, Kalowski, and EricGoberman. Look at the discussion for the last few months, it is ONLY US. Each point we make, each suggestion we recommend, has been rebuked by Ronz. How can there be consensus when there is NO DISCUSSION between two opposing parties?? Insane. Do you want to know what our consensus is? Our consensus is delete the entry or keep the Controversy section as is. Period. Why is this so hard to understand?  12.152.10.41 (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's rather silent here. It seems that the opposing party has disappeared again. Sidar (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Nope.  I've made detailed arguments, based upon Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as to why the Controversy section is inappropriate.  Consensus is not going to be reached by ignoring these policies and guidelines.  I've made multiple suggestions on how to continue, which have been ignored as well.  Per WP:V, the burden of evidence is upon those editors that want to include the information.  As I've repeatedly pointed out, you'll also have to meet WP:RS and WP:BLP.  --Ronz (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As for consensus, see WP:CON.  WP:TALK might be helpful as well. --Ronz (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone else posted before, we are no Wiki nerds, Ronz. Instead of pointing out thousands of useless acronyms, can you please tell us what is it that bothers you about the sources? Trust me, I have better things to do with my life than trying to understand wikipedia policies. 189.146.89.206 (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is the discussion?

message: Hi all,
After reading the above, and looking at the article, at this moment in time it is clear that the Controversy section is overblown.  It violates WP:UNDUE and doesn't appear to be well sourced.  Also, is the Controversy what Steve Hoffman is "best known for"?  If so, then there needs to be clear sources stating that this is so rather than the hodgepodge of cherry picked statements at the moment.  Personally I believe the whole Controversy section should be pruned back to a single sentence - however with the references in the article at the moment, it will be difficult.  All the supplied references have had liberal doses of WP:SYN applied to make the arguement that is currently present in the article.  This is a Bio of a living person and per the Wikipedia policies it requires excellent referencing.  It doesn't have that at the moment.  In fact I'm left wondering if Steve Hoffman is notable at all.  I am leaning towards recommending deleting this article.   Comments?  Shot info (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to try another AfD.  I'll unprotect the article so that the changes you recommended can be made before or during the course of the AfD, and, as I have stated above, any edit-warring will be met with blocks. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 10:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, I've stated my opinion on the subject of the article, however I have also reviewed the previous AfD and I must admit, most of the arguements for "keep" I disagree with.  But in saying that, lets go with that and keep the article.  However in saying that, as I stated above, the Controversy section does not appear what Hoffman is "best known for" hence it's dominance in the article is in violation of WP:UNDUE (and probably WP:BLP.  So if nobody objects, I'm going to prune it right back to a single sentance within the body of the text.  Shot info (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recommendation from an outsider - Deletion

message: OK, I went back and removed some of the more embellished/very POV writing to be more acceptable as per Wikipedia's standards. I have, in the process, restored the Controversy section with all four sources, reverting from a recent edit by Shot info (talk) who blatantly tried to restart the "warring". I hope my edit is more acceptable. -Sidar (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is the slight matter of this think called undue weight that kindof trumps "information with sources".  It seems that Sidar hasn't read the previous discussions above, and instead wishes to (re)engage in some editwar of his own creation.  I must note that I am a previously uninvolved editor, and I have pointed to basic policy (such as WP:BLP in my arguments) something Sidar only alludes to ("to be more to be more acceptable as per Wikipedia's standards").  Now because we are editing a BLP, it is important that the sources are top class....which they aren't.  The "sources" are cherry picked quotes which are then synthesised together here in Wikipedia...something called original research which editors should know and understand.  Now per BLP, such crap editing can be removed (if you don’t believe me, read the policy and tell me where I am incorrect).  If editors think that I am violating policy, by all means report me here > WP:ANI.   Shot info (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sidar, you did more than revert.  You added new content with a reference.  I checked the reference, and do not see how the new content is supported by it, so have tagged it as such.  I think it should probably be removed completely per BLP. --Ronz (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: OK, the two currently unreferenced items will be removed. -Sidar (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A More Acceptable Edit

message: Please answer the following question: Do you consider Michael Fremer to be an authoritative source? If so, why are you removing the Controversy section paragraphs? 
I also finally deleted the "Breath of life" paragraph. It's ridiculous, considering the context of an Encyclopaedia article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricGoberman (talk • contribs) 21:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The question here is why did you revert edits discussed above, without so much as a comment?  You seem to be edit-warring here.  Please stop immediately. --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let me discuss the following: I'll be editing the article and adding Michael Fremer's comments on Barry Diament and Steve Hoffman, since they establish Mr. Hoffman's mastering angle appropiately. EricGoberman (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that's no discussion.  Good luck on avoiding being blocked. --Ronz (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really care if you block me - if that's what makes you feel good about life, be my guest. I'm not "scared" at your blatant abuse of power but hey  - whatever.  Really. I'd only like to ask you why you refuse to accept Michael Fremer as a credible source. Just Google the guy. He's famous. He's influential.  He's credible. Why is it so that you refuse to accept his interview as a source? EricGoberman (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael Fremer, obviously Wikipedia disagrees :-).  FWIW, check out WP:RS on what Wiki calls a reliable source.  Shot info (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that Michael Fremer is not in Wikipedia has nothing to do with his reliability...  it just means nobody has yet created his page. EricGoberman (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're confusing WP:RS with WP:BIO.  This concern here is that verifiable, reliable sources are provided. --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Editors that repeatedly violate BLP will find themselves blocked or banned very quickly.  --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason I didn't cite my source is because I don't trust you - what on earth???  Kalowski, please read WP:RS and WP:BLP.  You are wishing to add info into the article, the onus is on you to provide the pertinent information per Wikipedia policies.  Ronz is correct in his actions.  Can I recommend that you assume some good faith?  --Shot info (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why were my edits reverted?

message: Please explain in words of more than three acronym based letters what is wrong with this section that I added and "impartial" Ronz deleted:
Hoffman's personal website and forum, populated by fans, yet strict with critics, regularly runs forum fund-raisers, such as this:  which allows members to contribute to the running of the website. Yet, the website is not subscription based, and there are no accounts published as to the use and distribution of the money. Because of this there has been some questioning of these fund-raising tactics. Some people who question the validity of this fund-raising have been banned from contributing to the forum discussions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalowski (talk • contribs) 18:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The edits were reverted because of WP:OR and WP:BLP concerns.  If you follow the links, you should get some idea of what is wrong with the sections.  Simply, this article and talk page are not forums for gossip and attacks. --Ronz (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

text: WP:V states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Verified, but not by a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense? 

message: I'd requested a third opinion, "Disagreement about information removed "per BLP" (removed here and removed here) and request for further explanations of WP:BLP."  However, I'm wondering if this is still in dispute while we wait for someone to respond. --Ronz (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose there are two things that make a third opinion really difficult. First of all - the Houston Press is the only article to be found regarding the Buddy Holly incident. Second, nobody else is making an argument about removing the information in the first place. It all comes down to whether you believe the Houston Press is indeed a respectable, credible source of information. EricGoberman (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 3PO x2 Questions about the usability of a source in a BLP can be asked at wp:BLPN.  As Ched as already suggested, if BLPN doesn't help work this out, then the next step is an RFC.  More than 3 people have given opinions, so this is no longer a 3PO issue.  NJGW (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion request still in dispute?

message: What happened here, Ronz? I thought we were OK now. I used factually correct and true sources, the persons mentioned are experts in the field, and everything is presented in a NPOV way. Why did you add a "Neutrality disputed" notice? NOBODY is disputing the facts I posted about. I'll delete the messagem, since as far as I can see, there's no dispute whatsoever here. If you add it back, please explain your reasons to do so. EricGoberman (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The material gives undue weight to these sources and the selection of material does not represent the overall perspective of each source. --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a problem here, then. Nobody is arguing non-NPOV but you. You are a moderator, not an interested party. Someone else would need to argue the article is biased. And,  again, I see nobody has argued to the contrary. Do you see what the problem is? You are a part of this discussion, and the judge of it. But, so be it. Please tell me what's the viewpoint of the material I present, and why my arguments are invalid. A simple "gives undue weight" won't do. If you want to argue, argue with facts, please. EricGoberman (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concern.  I'd like to resolve the BLP issues first.  Are there problems with leaving the notice in the article in the meantime? --Ronz (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: None at all. Thanks for your patience.EricGoberman (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality disputed

message: In an effort to keep an NPOV throughout the article, I've made several changes. Hope you approve of them, Ronz. I believe it's far better than 1 week ago. EricGoberman (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BLP applies always.  If there is poor sourcing because the subject isn't really that notable, then prune or delete away.  Given that BLP errs on the side of caution, deletion is often the "safer" path.  Shot info (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd strongly argue to "delete" then, since it's impossible to properly source this article. EricGoberman (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New sources, more info

message: Since Ronz has not indicated otherwise, I'm removing the "unsourced" tag on the front page. The article is pretty well sourced now, and IMHO, quite NPOV. 
Nobody has argued otherwise. EricGoberman (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag doesn't indicate the article is unsourced, the tag indicates that we need more and better references. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting the "unsourced" comment on initial page

message: ===Possible references (again)===
These are from the previous discussion above: --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent and possible references

message: These are from the previous discussion above: --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible references (again)

message: These were removed from the article immediately prior to the AfD: --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent references

message: I am cleaning up the approach section to remove redundancy and the subjective concept of "breath of life". Also resubmitting the reference to the Houston Press article in a separate section specifically worked to avoid POV and defamation. Address your concerns here before reverting. Sidar (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The information from the Houston Press article has once again been removed per WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it was.  There is no room in a bio for claims based on "anecdotal evidence".  That's just unacceptable, especially given that it is a negative claim.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article cleanup

message: Why doesn't the article mention Hoffman's "24k Gold" remasters of Metallica's Ride The Lightning, Master Of Puppets and ...And Justice For All albums? 190.17.41.208 (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metallica Gold Edition CDs? 

message: Shouldn't a biography include actual biographical details?  Like when he was born, for example.   The article as it stands is a joke ... 4 masterings listed and minimal information about his career.  If it is not possible to provide sources listing this information then perhaps this article shouldn't exist.  Either he is important enough to warrant a properly sourced article or he isn't.  Of course, the same criticism could be made of the Peter Mew article. Even Ken Scott's article lists his date of birth! Pinglis (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Biography

message: This article is one of a  number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue   are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes"  would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pending changes

message: The "approach" section makes no sense to me. His job is to improve the sound of old albums, and he does this by running them through outdated vacuum tube technology and intentionally distorting the sound? How can that possibly make the music sound better? And what is "subtractive equalization?" Admittedly, I've no background in audio engineering, but shouldn't a short article like this be understandable to laymen? 47.32.26.220 (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Approach

message: I didn't see this page before adding two brief pieces of info. I see there's been a long, long, LONG debate about various bits of the article. All I added was that (a) he's known for audio engineering and (b) he has a website that includes a forum where people discuss existing recordings and share news of new ones or represses, etc. I hope those are relatively uncontroversial and throughly neutral things. 2603:8001:2A00:7428:D9C7:6B6F:898A:A153 (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: Why does this man call himself a Mastering Engineer? Seriously— he makes ridiculous claims. If you call him out on them as have many true Audio Engineers have from MFSL or AP— he bans them from his site. I was banned for just asking the last time he mastered anything and why he doesn’t own any audio gear. 76.184.19.249 (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steve Hoffman was a helper and nothing more