User talk:Rickens

Eddie Van Halen

Dear User. There's a difference between primary and secondary influences. Reverted the edit to:

Eddie has many influences, most notably Eric Clapton and Jimmy Page [3][4]. He has also acknowledged the influence of Queen guitarist Brian May,[5] and fusion guitarist Allan Holdsworth, as well as the likes of Montrose guitarist Ronnie Montrose.

Thanks. --115.167.93.138 (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize Eddie Van Halen entry as you did here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eddie_Van_Halen&diff=330208181&oldid=330191601

--115.167.93.138 (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only added some information my friend.

Thanks for your contribution but show me your proof/citation first. Don't vandalize. Secondly, this "information" is not relevant here. If you can provide a direct quote from Eddie Van Halen saying "noting his Jimmy Page's wreckless style being similar" or a reliable and verifiable Magazine article/ book excerpt that passes WP:RS we can probably add your contribution. --Scieberking (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vandalise friend, the source stated Clapton as his main influence (cited) and that Eddie said his style was similar to Page in a wreckless kind of way, also cited. No need to jump the gun, friend. I will add that back in accordingly when I get a chance.

Based on this direct quote from Eddie Van Halen with Guitar World Magazine, February 1990, he has made it quite clear that Jimmy Page and Eric Clapton were his primary influences:

"He's Jimmy Page a genius. He's a great player, a songwriter, a producer. Put it this way, he might not be the greatest executor of whatever, but then you hear a Page solo, he speaks. I've always said Clapton was my main influence, but Page was actually more the way I am, in a reckless-abandon kind of way."

So if you're able to prove that Eddie said "noting his Jimmy Page's wreckless (actually reckless; your source has grammatical mistakes) style being similar", you're free to add this sentence. Thank you. --Scieberking (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well now that you mention it, your actually incorrect my friend, it technically doesn't say that, I wasn't really disputing that, but now that you brought it to my attention, the quote doesn't say he was a primary influence, but does state his style to be more similar in a wreckless kind of way. I will vote to have that re-changed, and look to add in the more specific bit in already had in there. If you want Page listed as a primary influence, your going to have to find a better source I believe. I'll put it on the talk.

I'm adding the Eddie Van Halen disagreement on Third Opinion. Please don't revert until it gets resolved. Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again see the talk friend.

Even though you completely reject the third opinion, I compromise. However, I only think "many" is the right word here; diction:

Eddie has noted many influences (numerous means "innumerable" or "amounting to a large indefinite number", and I don't think the word makes sense in the sentence)

--Scieberking (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not true at all, I acknowledged it, and attempted to make a fair compromise, even though what I already proved was correct. You could change the wording to "numerous" if you like. I'll change it to numerous if you feel it sounds better.

No, you aren't getting the point. "Many" is the right word, so I've changed it to many instead of "numerous". That's the only changed I've done. Happy Wikipeding. Cheers. --Scieberking (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "many", right, yep, cool, forgot before editing.

Led Zeppelin

Please stop vandalizing /adding unobjective, POV information to Led Zeppelin article, without substantial reference that passes WP:RS, as you did here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&diff=prev&oldid=330224786

Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't vandalising, nor was that POV, I actually had a bit in there defending them, and will vouch for that to be included. The quote was actually defended them, while only one of the DJs was against.

Are you saying a radio interview segment is not a reliable source? I didn't think that wasn't acceptable

Recent edits to articles on living persons

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially critical when dealing with Biographical articles of Living Persons; Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research. Due to the contentious nature of this article, contributions such as the one you made fall under a Special enforcement ruling on biographies of living persons.

Accordingly, you are requested and required to discuss contentious edits such as this one on the article's talk page. This notice is your official warning that further edits which add non-neutral, libelous, or inadequately sourced information to a biography of a living person may result in your being blocked from editing without further warning. Thank you. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the content you added to Eddie Van Halen, even if it seems trivial to you such as influences, could be contentious to others. Please do not add content back to the article when editors have removed it and raised legitimate concerns such as above. Please also review WP:EW. This warning also extends to other pages covering living persons you have edited such as Led Zeppelin. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was adding information that was more true to the quote on Eddie Van Halen, and attempting to fix the misrepresentation of what the link actually said.

As for the Led Zeppelin article I was only trying to add more information and it wasn't brought to my attention a Radio segment couldn't be used? Is this true?

Remember that Wikipedia functions by verifiability not truth. There is a lot of sensitivity around pages of living persons that I assumed you were unaware of, hence the above message. I understand that you had good intentions but it is generally not wise to just re-add text that has been removed by editors with clear concerns. The best course of action is take it to the talk page, which I see you are now doing and is good to see. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Enigma^msg 21:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made any reverts so to speak, all I had done was insert the information which I added, which was reverted, which elaborated and expanded, and properly represented the sources and information included, along with new information on Eddie's style, touring information and his love of Cream (the band). I understand this rule, and will not add the information in within the 24 hour period.

Blocked as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by MuZemike 21:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.