User talk:156.34.217.92

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, may I know why did you remove the rickresource.com link?

it contains the biggest Rickenbacker forum as well as the only active register of Rickenbacker instruments with over 3000 items.

According to External Links guide I could not find any reason for not including it on the list.

Feel free to respond to gil@disatnik.com

Thanks.

Because it's a WP:EL vio. Read the policy. 156.34.217.92 (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I did read, please tell me which part of the policy is being violated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GilbsonLP (talk • contribs) 21:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Read section 4 again. No blogs, chats or forums... among other things. It's pretty straightforward. 156.34.217.92 (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
True, however - this site has the largest (and only...) Rickenbacker register (http://www.rickresource.com/register) and also has tons of other useful information.
The forum is indeed a very active part of the site, but it has a lot more into it than just forum.
The register will soon (by tomorrow) hold Serial numbers of stolen Ricks as well, a very useful tool.
Additionally - The forum itself is endorsed in a way by Rickenbacker themselves, making it somewhat half official, Rickenbacker did start their own forum a few years ago, but Rickresource remained the "main" Rickenbacker forum, Rickenbacker's CEO is an active forum member as well as other Rickenbacker employees, the forum gained so much popularity that even Chris Squire registered to it a few months ago.
Proper discloser: I programmed the new register. However - this is not my site.

Half official? Even artist endorsed fansites are a WP:EL vio and not allowed on Wiki. This site is no different. It's still a WP:EL vio. Anyone requiring stolen serial number data can find it via Google. They won't need to find it here. 156.34.217.92 (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It used to be the "official" (and only) Rickenbacker forum until Rickenbacker decided to open their own forum.
The forum is not the issue at hand, Rickresource is currently the largest Rickenbacker resource site, it contains articles, guides (written by Rickenbacker employees and professional luthiers), list of Rickenbacker players and their equipment and lots of information about related bands. Not mentioning it only because it is not "official" is simply ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GilbsonLP (talk • contribs) 23:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a subject better suited for the Wikipedia topic page. I didn't write the policy. I just happened to be a regular editor of guitar related articles and happened upon a policy violation and removed it. Forums get removed from all guitar articles eventually... it's just the encenclopedia's policy to do so. And there are hundreds of editors, besides myself, who look for those sorts of things everyday. For some of them... rm'ing WP:EL vios is the only thing they do. Hope that helps. 156.34.217.92 (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

My Friend - there are no hard feelings here, working behind the monitor sometimes let us forget that we are all flesh and blood. Just the fact that you actually spend the time editing articles on wikipedia makes you a nice person.
My question is - how can we continue? we seem to hit a deadend in which you are holding on a policy which is okay in most cases, however imho - wrong in this case, is there some sort of an "official" wikipedia authority to solve this thing? Think about it - the largest and most active resource site on X is not being mentioned on the article regarding X... Isn't that odd?
Thanks again for taking the time of conversing this issue with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GilbsonLP (talk • contribs) 23:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Editing is a hobby and I've been here almost as long as there has been a project to edit. Reverting vandals and policy vios... I can do that in my sleep. I used to have an account... with over 20000 Wikipedia edits... but I grew tired of turning down requests to be an admin here. Plus... I noticed a growing 'anti-anon' trend happening... something I felt went against what Wikipedia was all about... so I abandoned my user account for the "purity" of anonymous editing. As I near 30000 edits as an anon... I never regret the path I took. Had I been an administrator then I could push for a new discussion on whether a policy needs to be reviewed. But being "just" an editor... an IP editor at that... I cannot sway opinions too much as far as bending the rules. It falls under the "I don't make the rules, I just follow them" and help others to follow them too. I have mentored dozens of editors here... many administrators too. I am not a Wiki addict despite my prolific edit history here. I actually do not feel WIkipedia is a very dependable resource... YET. It might be someday. It has some very good articles. But of the 2.1 million articles on WIkipedia... 80% of them are shit pardon my abruptness :D and could easily be deleted... if I had my way. I am strong believer that "Inclusionists" are the scourge of all quality here on this project. Wikipedia's music related articles are some of the worst because they draw in so many POV pushers and soapboxers and spammers n such. Mostly teenage twits who have little to none as far as real music knowledge, background or history. It struggles to be a "pedia"... but for now it's just "Wiki". Hopefully someday it will obtain the lofty title it reaches for. Move your plea to a "higher plain". I cannot change the rules. 156.34.217.92 (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] I assumed he mis-entered it

It's rare for people to enter a comment that isn't at the bottom of the page, I thought it was some error and he meant to put it at the bottom like most people would. Especially when in the past, he was against calling the band heavy metal, from what I read in the talk archives. (The Elfoid (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

He built it into an FA. He is a vet editor with some good writing skills. He agrees with Wiki's policies on citations and reliable sources and on how to edit an article appropriately. You learn these things over time. You are still working on the Van Halen article so I won't comment right now on it(you're right... it's pretty bad). WAY too many sections and subsections. 5 Sections with NO subsections is all any good article needs. Broken prose all over the place.I gave up counting where 3 and 4 separate (poorly worded) sentences could be combined into one short and concise sentences. Kee at it. It needs some TLC. 156.34.217.92 (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ?

I understand you taking out the metalcore albums mention in the recent trends section of thrash metal. I don't understand why you are taking out the mention of classic thrash bands making albums. That IS a fact. I can source those albums, but they do exist and are on wikipedia even. it doesn't make sense for you to take them out. It is NOT a pov, those albums exist and were made by classic thrash bands... Navnløs (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced opinions aren't facts...they're just that... unref'd pov. WP:ATT vios are common in fledgling articles... but when an article has been around for a while... the focus should switch from adding uncited original research... to try to referenced the content that's already there. That article is heavy laden enough with original research. It doesn't need any more. Having a ref from a reliable source is not a bad thing here. As long as the source is valid some not some teen chat room or blog or coming from some amateur sh*t website like metal-archives or rockdetector. I can;'t stress it enough... the best references are from books and from pro publications. A direct quote from Rolling Stone about recent happenings in the thrash metal scene... with a citation... is a good thing. Adding an unreferenced pov comment with no ref... doesn;t help build an encyclopedia. Hope that helps. 156.34.217.92 (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't help but post here since I was just looking on this a moment ago. Rock Detector's owned by Gary Sharpe-Young, acclaimed metal author. That's no amateur!!! (The Elfoid (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Funny

[1] I posted this on your static too just in case you'd miss it. You don't wanna miss it :-D ScarianTalk 21:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doesn't make sense

You're not making any sense by remvoing that paragraph. It doesnt need a source because it is fact. Those bands, such as Kreator did release newer albums. Now if you're stuck on the workd classic, they are not referring to the album as a classic but that the bands are classic thrash acts. If you would prefer older thrash metal bands, then I'll use that, though I dont see the difference. Navnløs (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)