This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 05:47, 7 June 2008 (Signing comment by Guitarmetal123 - ""). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:47, 7 June 2008 by SineBot (talk | contribs) (Signing comment by Guitarmetal123 - "")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Please click here to leave a message.

TALK PAGE ARCHIVES

Re. Thanks!

You're welcome! Keep up the great work! Regards, Húsönd 14:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

St. Anger

The edit I had undone had replaced the genre with the phrase "Crap Metal". This is clear vandalism. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

I just saw where you edit blanked 4 citations, which shows up as vandalism also in a popup window. I have replaced them (twice) along with the correct link which avoid the re-direct. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 17:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Bon Jovi

Why do you keep deleting my addition Re: Jon Bon Jovi is the only member under contract with their current record company. The other members work for Jon. It is believed that this is the only band that has this type of arrangement.........Jon himself said this on Dateline May 18/08 Vanhager (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Vanhager

Read WP:NOR and WP:CITE and WP:V and you'll know why. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well Hello!

Hey, it's great to hear from you. Yeah, I experienced some changes in my schedule as well. My Wiki-time faded away. But these days I think I should be able to squeeze in some RC patrolling and hopefully some other stuff, like the Guitarist Project.

We'll see. Superfluities beware. ;) Cheers! PJM (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

removal of NN refs

Can you explain why you have removed two references that I added to articles published relating to both Ozzy Osbourne and the film, I Am Legend? In both cases, these references enhance the overall articles. What is your problem with the references? Wikigonish (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

They are linking to a "who cares what he said" nobody. That's what's wrong with them. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 21:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

They are linking to articles published in academic journals. Academic journals automatically confer authority by being peer-reviewed. Look at the links before deleting useful information. Wikigonish (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to look at the links. THe Wiki-link to the author is a "red link". Case closed. If they aren't notable enough to have an article on Misplaced Pages, then they aren't notable enough to have their opinion posted about a Misplaced Pages subject. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 10:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a poor argument. You are making the circular case that if its not in Misplaced Pages then its not valid, so it can't be added to Misplaced Pages. Obviously something that is being added to Misplaced Pages is not already IN Misplaced Pages. The red links are meant to indicate the NEED for an article on the given name or subject. There are lots of red links throughout Misplaced Pages. What has been added in all 3 of the cases in which you've deleted now are links to academic sources that directly relate to the subject matter of the Wiki-article in question. Simply, you cannot use Misplaced Pages as the judge for inclusion if this is used to exclude articles of interest to the reader that would in themselves enhance Misplaced Pages.Wikigonish (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

invitation

thanks for inviting me to join the Guitar Project - i'm actually more of a Keith-Richards-Spotter and Stones History Freak than a true fully-fledged Guitar Anorak, so i'm not sure i've got the broader knowledge/reference works/resources to contribute much to the overall project beyond those particular subject areas. it's pleasant to be invited, though! so thanks - i will certainly keep on the lookout for ways to contribute even if i don't decide to sign up.

one Recurring Theme i've noticed while editing guitarist-related articles is that it isn't very clear what's supposed to be in the "notable instruments" part of the info boxes. i understand that criteria for what should be in that section were hammered out in detail a long time ago, but for newer editors (like myself) it would be really helpful to have those criteria spelled out somewhere easy to find (eg on the project page?) so that a link could be given to enlighten folks when removing "wrong" stuff they've entered. one example is Ronnie Wood, whose info box now lists "various Zemaitis instruments" (that much is clear!), "ESP signature model" (the ESPs he uses are in fact - and to me notably - outfitted with b-benders, which are not standard on the Ronnie Wood Signature ESP), and "Duesenberg signature model" (which he hardly ever uses anymore - it was seen maybe twice during the whole Bigger Bang Tour). this is just one example, of course, but it *is* difficult to understand why those are considered "notable Ronnie Wood guitars" when interesting instruments that he uses regularly (like his vintage Stratocasters, his Danelectro "sitar guitar", his beautiful Gibson J-200, etc etc) keep getting deleted when people try adding them.

ahem, sorry for the excess wordiness - what i mean to say is that the existing crietria for that section of the info boxes aren't self-evident, so it would be really really helpful to me and other well-intentioned newcomers if the criteria could be written up clearly and displayed in some easy-to-locate place.

thanks again for the invitation, and swing on. Sssoul (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The original plan for the Guitarist project's "notable instrument" field was to be very strict. It isn't supposed to be an overall equipment list. It was originally only meant to bring attention to specific "individual" instruments (like 'Blackie' or 'First Wife' or 'Micawber') but its use has ballooned over time. I personally don't see "signature instruments" as being notable unless the guitarist themselves had some input into their design (which many of them do). Most "sigs" are just marketing. As for Woody, for me, he is the first guitarist I think of when I hear the name Zemaitis. That's just me. The other guitars in his infobox do not mean very much to me. They stretch the original intention of the field to its max. If Woody has a specific early model Strat which he has used for the bulk of his career (and I believe he has) then to me that instrument is more notable than the sig models. But being included in the infobox doesn't say much about his vintage Strat(s). For notable instruments, in the hands of notable guitarists, the article should(must) have a decently referenced "equipment section" in the main body of the article. That is my thought anyways. I would be keen to see Ronnie's infobox field cleaned up. And if you are knowledgeable on the subject then by all means do so. I am partial to Strats so I am biased. When I was a little boy my favorite guitarists were Scotty Moore and Franny Beecher.(am I dating myself?) When I was ten I asked my parents for a Kay model electric guitar out of a department store catalog. My parents, without knowing what they were doing, went to a neighboring city to a "real" music shop looking for a guitar for me. The salesman "rubed" them good. The Kay I wanted was relatively cheap. And this music store crook sold them a guitar that cost more than twice what I had wanted. And home they came to me with a brand new Fender Stratocaster! To really date myself that puts a 1962 Strat in the hands of a 10 year old. I still own it. It's seen better days but all the nicks and bumps haven't made it any less playable. When I was a teenager I saved my own money and bought an identical twin to my first '62. I still have it as well. I keep both guitars locked away at my home studio. They are worth a few pennies these days so I tend to horde them like an old miser. Feel free to do whatever you want to improve any guitar/Stones related pages. And feel free to ask me questions anytime. Cheers and have a nice day. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 13:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the very cool story! and i don't know about you, but for me the power & glory of growing up with that music makes me feel really blessed to be the age i am (a few years younger than you) - there aren't a lot of things that make me glad about that, so i really *really* appreciate the ones that do!

thanks too for the go-ahead to amend Ronnie's "notable instruments", but i know from experience that unless/until some clear "authoritative" criteria are outlined somewhere that i can refer people to, some other editor will just undo the changes. so it would be splendid if outlining the criteria clearly on the project page could be one of the undertakings of the revival of the Guitar Project.

as for Woody's guitars in particular: yeah his Zemaitises are THE "Ronnie guitars" for sure - but he has a pair of vintage Strats (1954 and 55) that he's been very loyal to (and vice versa) - plus that lovely Mary Kay Strat that he gave to Keith after the 1982 tour (Keith still uses it on stage). the Duesenberg was really only a one-tour phenomenon, so i'm not sure why it's mentioned; to me the Strats, the J-200 and the Danelectro "sitar guitar" are a lot more notable, distinctive, "Ronnie-esque", etc. a detailed "gear section" would certainly be a very worthy addition to his article, and could mention his clear penchant for "boutique guitars" like the Duesenberg, the ESPs, the Versouls, etc; i'll ponder what i might be able to do toward writing/referencing sections like that for both Keith and Ronnie.

meanwhile though, clear and easy-to-locate criteria for the "notable instruments" section really would be a big help to all the guitarist-related articles. thanks and swing on Sssoul (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

hey

metallica has sold 100 million albums..they themselves have said it in an interview and all all there sales together you will see —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.67.10 (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

But the reference doesn't say that so it can't be changed until a new reference has been added. And Metallica saying it themselves is not a reliable source. It has to come from a third party source that is verifiable. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 10:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Project

Hi Anger22, thanks for the invite. I've put my name down and will do my best to help where and when I can. All the best, Pat Pending (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

listen up

F.Y.I. black sabbath is gothic rock or gothic metal.If you look up on wikipedia gothic metal and scroll down you'll see a picture of there album and read the text under it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvmetal28 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It says they are an influence. It does not say that they play gothic metal, and rightfully do. Black Sabbath are an influence on Doom metal as well. But they have never actually played that either. Adding that genre to their infobox is as acurate as adding bluegrass or opera. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback.

Actually, that wasn't rollback (it would be an abuse of rollback), I was reverting manually using "Removed cause of death." as the edit summary. Anyway, fixed the rest of them. Cheers, and thanks for spotting that. · AndonicO 19:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

So now I'm the stalker, is that it? ;) · AndonicO 19:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case, good, because I've done an awful lot of it. Heh... · AndonicO 19:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

My lips are sealed. ;) Well, hope to run into you again sometime. Cheers, · AndonicO 19:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Grincore

Why have you undon the changes I did on the Heavy Metal page with Grincore. Grindcore, though being a descendant of crust-punk, is considered a metal subcategory. If you don't change it, I'll just do it myself. (UberHeadbanger) 19:47, 26 May 2008 (EST)

Then you will be edit warring and you will end up blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Your choice. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done quite a few research on the subject, and I can surely tell you Grindcore is part of Heavy Metal. If you need any sources , I'll give you some. Allmusic guide, which gives a clear statement about Grindcore's origins and the related styles (Death Metal/Black Metal and Speed Metal) and also the movie Metal, A Headbanger's Journey, a very reliable documentary which clearly places Grindcore as a part of the Heavy Metal tree. Now, I'm sorry to bring you back to earth, but I am right, stop destroying valuable information on Misplaced Pages, for this is almost vandalism. (UberHeadbanger) 21:42, 27 May 2008 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.169.168 (talk)

Perhaps you had better read WP:VANDAL before making accusations. And while you are at it you can read WP:SOCK. It will help you understand the report to the admins concerning your use of multiple accounts/IPs to edit war on Misplaced Pages. After reading that you can read WP:3RR. And when you are done that read WP:ATT and WP:V. All very useful. Also, where your recent edit is concerned read WP:CON. You will need to understand all of these policies before you continue or you time here will be a short one. If you have any questions about any of your multiple violations of Misplaced Pages policy fell free to ask and I will direct you to one of my admin friends and they will explain further. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I only use one account and one IP adress, and I find it offensive that you accuse me of the opposite, though I do apologies for saying what you wrote was vandalism. I did not violate the three-revert rule for I did not do more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. And I did add a link to a valuable source (Allmusic.com) in my last change. For the last thing you told me to check, which is the consensus policy, I'm just tired of writing things that have valuable sources and having people take them off. I am not trying to create any internet war, or I wouldn't have written to you in the first place to explain what I had written, I'm just trying to post facts. Grindcore had been on the Misplaced Pages Heavy Metal page for a long time, and somebody decided to take it off, I therefore wanted it back on the page. Anyways, I am simply going to debate this on the Heavy Metal talk page. Anyways, thanks for reading this, and reply to me if you want to continue this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UberHeadbanger (talk • contribs) 22:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I jsut saw what you were talking about for the sock puppet, it's 69.70.169.168, which is basically when I'm in a hurry and forget to sign in Misplaced Pages, it is the same IP adress, just to let you know, I was not assuming any other identity, it was simply that I wasn't signed in. Thank you for your comprehension. UberHeadbanger —Preceding comment was added at 00:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Support

Dear Anger22. Thank you for your support. It was most unexpected but welcome. If you need any help with anything, just let me know. MegX (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Why so defensive on the list of sweep pickers?

You've reverted my edit twice now. Why is this? Everyone knows, even without sources, that Steve Morse and the others I removed are not known for their sweeping; they're primarily alternate pickers, and the ones I added are indeed very well known for sweeping. If one is supposed to 'source' a song to prove the aforementioned, how on Earth is that possible? And judging by the edit history of the article, you seem to have adopted some defensive position as its chief editor or something. No-one gets a word in but you? Laughable! Mac dreamstate (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, scratch that. I think my page refreshes were delayed, so it looked like Gilbert/Morse/Lane/etc. had been added back on the most recent edit. I still think Impellitteri and Romeo should be on there, but I can live with how it is as long as the most obvious ALTERNATE pickers aren't on there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac dreamstate (talk • contribs) 15:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You have to be careful about list crufting. Misplaced Pages isn't just a list of examples. Especially since most just tend to be POV favourite lists. As for your removals, those guitarists, skill wise, can "sweep" as well as any of the remaining players on that list. Most of them are equally adapt at alternate picking, sweep picking and hybrid picking styles. (especially players like Morse who move from one to the other effortlessly). Making lists smalled is a good thing. Your additions were "niche" additions that 99% of readers will have never heard of. So they are wp:lc entries. It's all a part of constructive encyclopedia building. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 20:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I agree about the need to avoid list crufting – everyone's seen what happens when all manner of recent players (the Suicmezes or Matt Heafys) are added just because they sweep every often on songs. But be that as it may, the players that I made it an issue to remove (specifically Morse, Gilbert, Lane and Vai) are most certainly not "known" for their sweeping. Adept or not, they haven't demonstrated any real reason to be known especially for that technique; unlike Batio, MacAlpine, Malmsteen, and many more of the obvious names. Romeo a "niche addition", though? That's rather a silly claim, considering his profound impact on the sweep-tapping technique and the fact that his name regularly gets thrown around in discussion circles whenever sweeping is mentioned. Impellitteri... granted, maybe I was overzealous there.

In any case, Morse has even said himself in some old interview (iirc featured on his own site) that he prefers to use alternate picking to play lines that would otherwise be swept, i.e. Tumeni Notes; Gilbert has stated numerous times in interviews and instructional videos that he purposely crafted his skill at string-skipping just to be able to play arpeggios in a way that sounded more pleasing to his ears (whilst making a point of "messing up the timing", to quote his own words, when attempting to sweep); Lane has, at least in one tutorial, said that he too much prefers the feel of alternate picking/legato to sweeping (subsequently showing the viewer a sloppy, half-assed attempt almost on purpose); and as for Vai, I've never read or heard either in print or song that he likes to sweep to the point of being especially known for it - he leans more towards legato and alternate picking in live situations at the very least. Mac dreamstate (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Rainbow

I'm not sure I understand what the message about my edits was about.

Bradroenfeldt (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Lute links

Hi there,

Can I ask why you edited away useful external links on the lute page? I added the Malcolm Prior link (I am not Prior, incidentally!) as his website is of much use to those wanting information on the lute.

Kind regards,

Henri —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henri Bergson (talk • contribs) 13:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I quoted the policy in my edit summary. See WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 13:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That is insufficient reason. The link provided is of great use to those interested in the instrument, as it shows the workshop of a craftsman and innumerable other related links.

You are making Misplaced Pages worse by your policies of unnecessary exclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henri Bergson (talk • contribs) 13:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

They are not my policies they are the policies of the project and they must all be followed. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 13:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

But they are not. The guidelines allow for relevant links as we see on most pages. I think your interpretation of the guidelines is corrupt - please re-read them and re-evaluate.

It is important that an encyclopedia has a style guide and absence of falsity; however it should, by its very purpose, include all relevant material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henri Bergson (talk • contribs) 13:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Also note that I am not the only one to remove the link from the project. Your first attempt was removed by a different user. So this is not just my interpretation. see WP:CON. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 13:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Truth is not measured by votes but by reason.

But anyway, the previous user rightly removed it from a non-link section. He did not remove it from the link section, links all of which you swept away with little thought.

You are in the wrong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henri Bergson (talk • contribs) 13:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not never wrong where Wiki is concerned. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 19:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

How childish! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henri Bergson (talk • contribs) 15:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Fields of Athenry

Hi Anger22, there is a user on the disccusion page of this article who will not accept that information in this article is unsourced. he's telling me that if I want verification of this unsourced info I have to do a LexisNexi search. When you got a minute will you please have a look. Cheers, Pat Pending (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yo, about the Killing Is My Business... and Business Is Good! article

I think that Dave Mustaine should be listed in the credits next to Lee Hazlewood for These Boots. It's true that she originally made that song, but Dave Mustaine rewrote some of the lyrics, and he obviously wrote the guitar leads and stuff to go along with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.186.10 (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

ok i did not vandalize the page when i was editing it i made a mistake and it messed up the html in the code —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarmetal123 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)