User talk:156.34.220.185

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:156.34.220.185.

[edit] Mike Flicker / Fisher

Thanks for your support, but as they say on those TV shows about lawyers & courts, I now have "reasonable doubt". I'm not convinced yet, but have a look at User talk:71.35.161.45. He's either a good con-man, or he has a point. As I said, I need more information. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW: I'd be interested to read your reaction to him. (i.e. Am I being conned?) (Reply here if you prefer.) Pdfpdf (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Precisely! I agree with you 100%.
For example: "There are further details I can't expose". Yeah. Right. Why can't he expose them. (rhetorical question)
I think your use of "clandestine", "drama" and "soap opera" are all spot on.
Never-the-less, I'm intrigued. (i.e. I've been "sucked in".) Thanks for your response. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Re Copyvio: Oh. That's a shame. But can you hold off on that for a week while I get to the bottom of this soap opera? That would be appreciated. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Just discovered I'm going to be out-of-town next week. Can you hold off for a couple of weeks? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW: If you're interested, User talk:71.35.161.45 has an additional batch of - pause - errr - data (?) which is keeping me interested. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Vai

Believe it or not I was trying to expand the intro which is TOO short at present. Its very difficult to do add anything without seeming POV -you didn't state in the edit summary you had moved it down. I am not some silly little fanboy, as for him being widely recognized as a virtuoso, anybody who doubts that guitarists such as Joe Satriani and Steve Vai aren't at the top of their fields needs their head read, this isn;t POV and their are countless official websites such as Rolling stone etc which recognize them as this. Everybody knows who the guitar virtusos are. Why do you think all the major bands such as the Rolling Stones, Deep Purple, Whitesnake etc went to such lengths to hire them?. The Wild West guy (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said they weren't. But after reading many discussions on the topic from regular editors within the guitarist project... their guideline is that it can't be in the lead-in. Satriani, Albert Lee... many others include the crufty term... but its ref'd and its in more appropriate sections... such as 'style' or 'influence'. The lead should read like a boring ol' bare facts stereotype "Britannica" lead-in... not a fansite. 156.34.220.185 (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Better. But still not good enough yet. Needs some further expansion to the intro and references. It is not always easy to find references for somebody like Steve Vai without finding something that is fan related or gushing The Wild West guy (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)