User talk:68.32.79.74: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:23, 10 July 2007

Welcome!

Hello, 68.32.79.74, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Samuel Wantman 21:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the welcome. As you can see, I tried my hand at a topic and had fun doing so. But I am very skeptical about the project as a whole; an article on the song "A Hard Days Night" is filled with misinformation, incomplete information, and poor writing. Accurate and inaccurate information take up occupancy in the same sentence. Other sentences hedge their bets, which can often happen when something is written in committee. As it stands, Wikipedia is last place one would go to find accurate information about "A Hard Day's Night". Basic information such as the song's authorship and the name of the opening chord is written in such shape-shifting prose as to be inconclusive at best. 68.32.79.74 20:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. 156.34.208.47 22:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am contributing constructively. When you write that my contribution is unconstructive, what precisely are you basing this on? Please explain precisely why you believe it is acceptable to equate Emerson's playing with the others listed in that paragraph. To say that I am damaging the work of others is insulting. The other person is misinformed, and you are abetting him. However, I have decided to add a simple sentence at the end of the other individual's "work" which indicates what a well-regarded music website says about Mr. Emerson's playing. I hope this is satisfactory. But if it isn't, kindly explain why that is so rather than vandalising my work.

Any direct quote on Wikipedia requires an inline reference or it will be removed. Please read Wikipedia policy before attempting any more edits which violate Wikipedia's rules for editing. Thank you. 156.34.208.47 00:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't directly quoted anything. Stop removing my posts. Fact is, there is proof for what I'm saying and no proof for what you are saying. Still, I haven't touched what you've written. Try affording me the same courtesy. R

Violation of WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. 216.21.150.44 00:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war? I've added a single sentence which quotes a well-established music website called All Music Guide. The other user contended that three other keyboard players were on par with Keith Emerson. This is not true. It would be like contending David Letterman invented the theory of relativity. The other individual accused me of bias. Where's the bias? I added a sentence, quoting an excellent source of critical opinion on the matter -- not my own opinion -- which the other user continues to delete. I would also argue the other "writer" is offering his/her opinion. Wikipedia is not supposed to be about that, is it?

R

Reading through the article edit history you were in multiple violations of WP:NPOV. Your edits were justifiably reverted. Then you attempted to add a direct quote for an opinion. Which is fine. The east coast editor, again justifiably, reverted with a clear quote of WIkipedia policy WP:CITE. No direct quotes from external websites/books or other publications without a proper inline reference. It also falls under WP:V for verifiability. Your edit can be verified if the properly formetted reference is included along with the quote. Hope that helps. 216.21.150.44 00:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 :Any direct quote on Wikipedia requires an inline reference or it will be removed. Please read [[WP:POL|Wikipedia policy]] before attempting any more edits which violate Wikipedia's rules for editing. Thank you. [[User:156.34.208.47|156.34.208.47]] 00:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
-I haven't directly quoted anything.  Stop removing my posts.  Fact is, there is proof for what I'm saying and no proof for the nonsense you keep saying.  Try growing up.
+I haven't directly quoted anything.  Stop removing my posts.  Fact is, there is proof for what I'm saying and no proof for what you are saying.  Still, I haven't touched what you've written.  Try affording me the same courtesy.
 R