User talk:RogerGLewis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

March 2009[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Hi Real Libs, I'm getting the hang of this, communicating is confusing as there isn't a reply button so to speak so it's guess work as to where to put questions suggestions etc, for me at this stage anyway. How would you suggest I put my suggestions for the Byrdland page, I'm all for consensus and I'm happy to draft things and put them in the talk section before showing them the light of day on the actual page.The links thing is open to a wide range of interpretations, a citation on manufacturing numbers and also an actual list of players citing locations where the proof in an actual photograph can be found would seem a longwinded way of achieving the effect of just posting a link to a location within which the information can be found anyway. I have read the discussion on inclusionist and deletionist philosophies with the link to the article posted in your own article, I found it very interesting. My objective in this is really just to get the Byrdland guitar properly recognised as the groundbreaking instrument it actualy was and still is. RogerGLewis (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Gibson Byrdland links et-al[edit]

Hi I am just getting used to the lie of the land around here. On the Byrdland Thread I have posted what I would say are useful additions to the information on that instrument. The Gibson Players list is a link and a poor one in terms of reference to the Byrdland. What is the problem do you think with the links I have posted? I collect guitars and have been researching the Byrdland model for over a year now. I own a vintage model and would like to see this section of the Wiki doing justice to the guitar. There are a number of edits I would suggest to the main article which is one dimensional in many respects relying mostly on the one source book, there is no reference to the 11th edition of the blue book or any edition of the blue book for that matter a material shortcoming in relation to any rare vintage instrument, even a cursory look at the shipping figures I posted a link to would show that the Byrdland is a rare and yet influential instrument. How does one discuss edits I do think there is rather a lot to discuss before this entry could be said to be satisfactry. I realise that Wikepedia is more than just a collection of links it does seem to me that such a big section of this entry relies on a link and an unimformitive one at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerGLewis (talkcontribs) 19:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing here but having just reviewed the post above entitled a request, I am starting to form the opinion that there is some pretty arbitrary and undemocratic editing going on in here. I am looking to enter into a sensible discussion as to how I might collaborate in getting the Entry for the Gibson Byrdland into a shape that actually communicates the importance of the Byrdland model in the development of the thin line guitar. If Wikipedia is to be other than a collection of links it should also be less than the one dimensional precis of one old source book. RogerGLewis (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC) My intention is to restore the links I have made or at least provide the list of notable players I have compiled within the body of the article. All sources of players are actually accredited to their source as are the sources of the photographs of the players with their instruments where I have them. This represents 4 months work alone. The shipping figures I mentioned should also be placed in the article to give context to the influence of the byrdland in relation to the numbers actually manufactured. The raw data speaks for itself as represented in the link, but if to get the information into the article I am happy to extract the apposite numbers . There is an important article published by George Gruhn on the Byrdland a world renowned expert on vintage and rare guitars and the history of the instrument, that there is no reference to this article is a material shortcoming, in my opinion, of the entry as it stands. I am reminded of the old saying about those living in glass houses not throwing stones. RogerGLewis (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC) I have now slept on this and re-read what i have said above and reflected on the rules/suggestions as to what appropriate links to a subject/entry should be. A link that clarifies a point or supports a statement should be considered as valid. The existing link in this article to notable players leads to a generic list of endorsed gibson players of all of their models, the link I have posted whilst it links to a forum it is the moderated forum of the Gibson company in the Hollow and semi hollow body section of the forum. The Gibson forum is a valuable source of information on all things to do with Gibson models as a source it is useful and as a link re-enforcing an already weak link it would seem to me to add something to the article.WIth respect to the link to shipping figures the information on this site is extremely well researched and is the best representation I have come across of all shipping figures for Gibson guitars. A large amount of interest in Gibson guitars has been generated by the famous 1959 and 1960 Les Paul Standard model which have exchanged hands for $1,000,000 plus privately and at auction, prices in excess of $500,000 are routine. 1278 Les Paul Standards were shipped in 59/60. Now consider the Byrdland first production run up to 1969 when from 1955 through to 1969 only 1147 were ever made the largest production/shipping run being in 1968 when 198 were shipped. This sort of information is available by looking at the sources I have suggested as a link. The current precised entry looking at the history going way back has become very sparce but does not communicate the substance of this instrument either by example or by reference, On the above basis I propose to re-instate the links I suggest today and would ask that should other contributors wish to add a further piece within the main article contextualising the links, could we exchange messages and decide what would be appropriate. I would equally accept that some explanation ahead of the links could help to clarify what direction those links lead. There really isn't a condensed source of information on the web for the Gibson Byrdland and I am excited that Wikipedia at least has the opportunity to provide a window into the very great history of this instrument a lot of younger guitarists I think seem to have the impression it's just something that Ted Nugent plays?RogerGLewis (talk) 08:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

See below for the offending links. - RogerGLewis (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop hand nuvola.svg It looks like you may have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia, at Anthony Wilson. Please do not add such material without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. The text you added to the page came from srushe (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What am I doing talking to a robot. I actually removed this myself realising it was probably not good to cut and paste I added a line of text however mentioning that Anthony Wilson notably played and owns a late 50's Gibson Byrdland quite an important part of his sound particularly with Diane Krall her other well known accompiansit Russel malone also used a Byrdland when with Ms Krall. In all honesty this really is all in all a rather frustrating place to try to contribute . It's hardly suprising that it has a reputation for wild innaccuracy!RogerGLewis (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Answers to questions[edit]

I did not say that anyone did not deserve an article. If a subject passes WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC they can have an article created on Wikipedia... feel free to create any article you wish. But remember that the project has several policies in place (like WP:BIO and [[WP:MUSIC) to keep the project free of NN article subjects. Unless an article already exists... they cannot be added to the Gibson list (or any other player list for that matter) As for Bennett/Benson. Their inclusion would be valid. But the worded entry must show detail for use + notability of use. Your entry for George Benson said "Great Jazz player"... and thats it. Said nothing about the L5... nothing about its previous owner... nothing about its auction sale.... nothing. As for Bennett... the entry capitalised the word white???... included the word Gibson?? in front of Byrdland (its a Gibson player article so identifying models as "Gibson" is redundant... thats written in the lead-in hidden text and also covered extensively on the talk page) + again... did not distinguish why he was notable for the Byrdland use. The list would benefit from having both entries if they were written properly and not added in a writing style of a grade 3 book report. "Great jazz player"... any 8 year could write that. The Benson reference has lots of information that could be compiled into a decent entry... instead the entry was a sparce 3 words that said nothing. The content of the Bennett link is simply a Wikipedia mirror site which fails policy WP:RS and cannot be used. References must pass WP:RS and must support the notability criteria for inclusion. Hope that helps

Frankly libs charecterising the addition of a few words as the writing style of an 8 year old is just silly. The Benson article already existed that establishes him as a great jazz player, his use of an L5 is proven in the Skinners auction catalogue which was posted as a link, I thought the double provenance point with the link to another noteable Gibson Player Wes Montgomery was particularly nice. Wayne Bennett is a noteable guitar player his byrdalnd was a present from BB King, according to his daughter. BB King and Bobby Bland have guest appeared together countless times, a lot of great Jazz ad Blues players pay tribute to Bennett. BY definition a lot of noteable Byrdland players will not be well known or famous, today even if they were back in the day which wouldn't be necessary to make them noteable, but they are noteable to their peer group and their style of playing will have influenced many other artists. On the Bennett entry to the list I think the evidence is there but several links to several places cross referenced back to the Wiki article if they exist is quite a lot of work. The Donna Stoneman edit I think was particularly harsh as well, I wanted to Add Mary Ford as well I haven't checked if theres an article for her yet. I don't see how an obviously incomplete and deficient list can get featured status just because all of the citations and links cross check the extreme example of that would be one perfectly constructed entry linked to an article and so on but the fact would remain that a list with obvious ommisions shouldn't be given any sort of featured status it should only be featured in a section of lists with lots more work needed.RogerGLewis (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Some important guidelines[edit]

Please read these carefully so you can see why we have done what we have done.

Reading the other guidelines might come in handy, too.

Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)