Talk:Silicon Optix

To do
Things to add:
 * Company history
 * General and neutral description of products
 * list of corporate leaders (pres, vis pres, etc) (added ---J.S (t|c))

---J.S (t|c) 18:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverting of recent edits
I reverted recent edits by Arvin singh as per MoS:HEAD, MoS:BIO, and WP:EL. Any disagreement that those edits violated wikipolicy? --Flex 16:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. Thank you for the help.  I am trying my best to comprehend the policies of Wikipedia.  Is there some way of adding the articles without being biased? Arvin Singh 20:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not realy sure how they violate policy Flex... ---J.S (t|c) 23:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The headings were capitalized (a violation of MoS:HEAD), "Dr. Paul Russo" should be just Paul Russo as per MoS:BIO, and as per WP:EL the external links should be more relevant to the subject than a newswire report (read: company publicity; cf. WP:CORP) and a relatively long product review that touched on Silicon Optix's part of it. Arvin, check out the WP:MoS for guidelines on editing, and see WP:CORP for more on articles about corporations in particular. --Flex 10:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, I'm sure I was clear in that I was talking about the ELs only. I have no problem with the removal of "Dr." or using lowercase.
 * Secondly, WP:CORP, WP:EL are not policies, they are guidelines. The quote about WP:CORP actually has nothing to do with including external links. WP:CORP is a notability guideline...
 * The reason why I included them was for those who are interested in further development of the article. The provide good starting points for further research.  Take them out of the main article if you want, but they need a place on the talk page then. ---J.S (t|c) 00:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I took the antecedent for "they" to be "those edits" as a whole. I mentioned WP:CORP only for reference (hence the "cf.") because it says that good sources to identify notability excludes newswire releases (see WP:CORP, for instance), but I notice on closer inspection that the Epson projector article was not in fact a newswire release but a "Product News" bit that was regurgitating press releases. Well, that makes it slightly better since the newswire at least has to be evaluated by a third party, but still it's vaporware at this point. The news writer does offer some evaluation of SO's technology that may be of interest. The other link, however, only mentions SO's test disc. There is no indication that the product even uses an SO chip, but assuming it does, it doesn't give any information on what parts SO is responsible for. (It has good noise reduction. Great, but did SO contribute part or all of that? We aren't told.) --Flex 04:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Silicon Optix.jpg
Image:Silicon Optix.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)