User talk:156.34.213.216

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

thats ridiculous, Zakk Wylde is overrated.

He is over-rated to critics who don't know how to play guitar.
I have critics who put Eddie Van Halen greatest guitarist, how do i put that on a page with out you changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chevydude8 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You can't add an opinion without a ref. And you can't add peacock terms and POV crufting to the article lead-in because it make ot look unencyclopedic and stupid. Van Halen isn't even in the top 1000 guitarists of all time when Jazz, Country, Bluegrass and Classical players are included in the mix. It's just not worth adding as it cheapens the article. 156.34.213.216 (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
So if i put the greatest metal guitarist according to _ nothing can be done about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chevydude8 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
If there is a musical style and influence section it can be added there. But it has to be a quote from a reliable source. No blurbs from blogs and especially no links to any fansites. Only valid references from pro publications (like Guitar Player Magazine... All Music Guide... etc)... then by all means add it in. But make it tasteful and encyclopedic. And not like some dumbass teenager class report. 156.34.213.216 (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
it was in a magazine, thanks for your help, i understand how all this stuff works now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chevydude8 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Read WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.... no opinions wanted, no opinions required. 156.34.213.216 (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Did -

- I ever tell you how gorgeous you are? :-D Thanks friend: [1] ScarianCall me Pat 23:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh great... I'm a DAB link :D. 156.34.213.216 (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, okay - I did it in a hurry... but here you are now your majesty :-D "You're gorgeous"... :-D NOW you're a featured article :-D ScarianCall me Pat 23:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logo removals

Would you kindly refrain from removing content while citing a policy as broad as WP:FAIR (without offering more specific reasons for concern) and a supposed talk page consensus (which is questionable at best)? Your intention to improve Wikipedia is appreciated, but please consider the time and effort spent by many other editors on obtaining, preparing and uploading these images, of which several are undoubtedly notable and hence worth of inclusion. Without any article linking to them, they will soon be tagged as orphaned fair use content and quickly removed, leaving very little time to consider alternative methods of inclusion (should aforementioned talk page discussion deem them necessary). - Cyrus XIII (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like consensus to me. I talked to an admin friend who agreed with the rationale that "free-use always wins out over fair-use"... and there's nothing more free-use than plain text. Even if there wasn't consensus... by Wikipedia's own mandate... Free-use always wins. 156.34.213.216 (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Consensus-building on Wikipedia is not about simply getting a majority of editors to agree on something, especially not without allowing due time and consideration for the points otherwise inclined editors might raise (see Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). Also, we have guidelines regarding the use of graphical logos (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)#The use of graphic logos. Wikipedia:Logos), so the whole line of thought that we should rather use plain text because it is more free kind of falls apart. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The consensus, which stretches across numerous talk pages not just the template page (where nothing constructive ever gets done), did not seem to care about WP:LOGOS in their arguements (and rightly so) instead consistently maintained that Wiki was global, Wiki was free, Wiki should not discriminate against users who do not have high speed connections (with is a great lump of the planet). It's a bigger picture then just fair-use trademarks and article "shock and awe". Rainbow colours do not always make an article look better. And, as already mentioned, make some portions of the article unreadable to many who haven't the speed to load all the superfluity. The simple notion "the encyclopedic that anyone can edit" must always over-ride Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)#The use of graphic logos, Wikipedia:Logos or any other WP:FOOLISHNESS. If it doesn't... then you are ignoring what the project was created for in the first place. 156.34.213.216 (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
It hardly matters if the discussion stretched across several talk pages, as it was the template talk page that was provided as a rationale for said content removal. Some links to related discussions on that page could in turn have helped to provide more transparency but it would still have been reckless (as opposed to bold) not to thoroughly consider obviously related guidelines or at least wait for a change to the template manual to happen before implementing such wide-reaching changes. Also, why is this suddenly about bandwidth concerns? If these were so central to the issue, they would been brought up earlier and given that notable logos will invariably find their way into an article, via the infobox or not, the resulting amount of data going out to our readers will remain the same. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In a slightly separate topic but still logos... I don't actually have an issue with the Kiss logo. They've been more corporation then band for about 30 years. But I digress. 156.34.213.216 (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok then Mister Splashy Pants.--E tac (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admins are just users

Hi, I just wanted to point out that administrators are just users (with some extra administrative buttons on their interface). There is usually no need to refer to someone with these buttons as an 'admin'. Having these buttons is a trivial fact, which does not come into play when building consensus or editing articles. Have a nice day. -- Pepve (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins are superheroes. Didn't you know that? Especially John and KOS and Alf and Bubba And Joanna. They are never wrong at anything. 156.34.213.216 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
How did you run into him? Ha - I'm pretty sure the word "admin" differentiates users without the buttons to those with... Logic?! - The BS logo is in the watch list. It's 2am - I don't know if the burning sensation in my eyes will abate if I stay awake longer... Lumpx needs a block (and his I.P.) as he's continuing to edit war. I'll keep an eye open for as long as I can for him... I'm not even making sense. Catch you tomorrow or later this morning... Coffee! Coffee! Take care :-D ScarianCall me Pat 02:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me then suggest that you refer to those users as 'superheroes', as it is most certainly not the admin-bit that makes them extraordinary. (I expect some admins not to be a superhero to you, and some regulare users to be one.) -- Pepve (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can I ask...

Why you reverted me here? J Milburn (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)