User talk:Joe dario

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted.}} Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. 10String guitar 17:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC) (please stop)

In Response to User:Joe dario's and User:Joe dario's friend's Quibbles about Neutrality

I don't recognise any issues of neutrality here as my article concerns only the instrument invented by Yepes/Ramirez - a guitar with linearised chromatic resonance, which is contingent upon its tuning. As such, your introduction of irrelevant and misleading information, rather, constitutes a biased perspective, one you wish to disseminate amongst unsuspecting readers. I refute your association of the instrument in question with guitars that just arbitrarily happen to have the same number of strings. These guitars are intrinsically different concepts, different instruments. The similarity in the number of strings is arbitrary. The similarity in appearance is arbitrary. You can build a harpsichord that looks exactly like a concert grand piano, that has exactly the same number of keys, but harpsichords and pianos remain distictly different concepts. The same holds in the difference between guitars with chromatic resonance and pseudo-lute guitars ("laudarras") or harp-guitars that happen to have ten strings but augment the guitar's imbalance of resonance rather than rectifying it.

My objective is to present the historical, scientific and musical facts that have been (and continue to be) obscured by misinformation. My objective is to present reliable information to musicians, guitarists and composers, for them to judge for themselves the musical and scientific logic of Yepes/Ramirez' invention, its advantages and applications. This has very little do do with an arbitrary addition of just any number of strings tuned any which way. You may have your own biased reasons for not wanting the public to be properly informed. (Your career and reputation may even depend on it.) It is your right to express your opinions and disseminate your points of view. What you are concerned with are different instruments altogether and you should, by all means, provide information about them in the appropriate context. However, since this is an encyclopaedia, only information that is truly of historical significance is appropriate. This means discussions of the Romantic 10-string guitar and the Modern 10-string guitar of Yepes/Ramirez are valid. Other, personal opinions of individual's who have not contributed anything of historical significance to the world of the guitar are not appropriate in the context of an encyclopaedia and should best be left for their personal web pages, discussion groups, or myspace.

To summarise, I refute any issue of neutrality. I refute your arbitrary equation of two conceptually and sonorously disparate instruments that exist for different reasons, that require different techniques, that have different and incompatible original repertoires, that have totally opposite resonant properties. I fully endorse and encourage you to create your own article/s to discuss your points of view, where appropriate. 10String guitar 05:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)10String guitar 04:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/Archeoix (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)