User talk:Trembaruser

May 2008
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 before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.

The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: 'youtube\.com' (link(s): http://youtube.com/watch?v=Jy1eiMZ5nUk). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image or a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

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 before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.

The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: 'youtube\.com' (link(s): http://youtube.com/user/dmometalguitar). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image or a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sm kk sig wartribe.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sm kk sig wartribe.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The list in the Floyd Rose article
Hi,

Since we disagree about the list of players, I added a section to the article's talk page with some of my reasoning behind why I don't think it fits the article, and I also referenced that in my edit comment. Please do participate in discussing the issue there, rather than us reverting each other and attempting to argue in edit comments. This also means I won't revert the article again while we figure out what to do. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Given our last rounds of edits and the lack of activity on the talk page, it looks like we've reached a standstill, and I'll go ask for a third opinion as mentioned on the talk page. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Floyd Rose
Hi, I don't understand why you keep on reverting back to content that we've discussed on the talk page, content which from my perspective is clearly in violation of principal Wikipedia policy (see for instance the first pillar in the fundamental principles). Instead of focusing on going back to versions that are disputed I suggest spending your time and energy on improving the article as it is, e.g. finding good sources for claims, rewriting content that's in need of copy-editing, and so on.

Because you've chosen multiple times to make reverts rather than participate in the discussions, I see no other option than to escalate the matter if you continue to keep reverting the article. Regards, Nettrom (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Floyd Rose
I disagree. There are TONS of articles on Wikipedia with lists. This is not original research - it's a factual list. Period. Instead of deleting other people's work, be more respectful toward other contributors and help improve the content rather than dumping it. This is not about dumping other people's work because of personal preference - it's about improving it and correcting it. Not only that, just because you're reading a few magazine articles online to rewrite Advantages & Disadvantages, it doesn't mean your content is bulletproof. Watch, for example, Floyd Rose tech videos on YouTube - some of which have tons of thousands of hits (versus a few thousand copies these magazines may sell) - which show CONSUMERS (not paid reviewers) discussing several points in the current list of Advantages & Disadvantages.

I'm starting to get the feeling you work for Kahler or another Floyd Rose competitor and wants to tone down Floyd Rose's reputation for your own benefit. Trembaruser (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Where I work is in this case completely irrelevant, please stick do discussing the case instead of making personal attacks like that. Besides, I find it funny that you claim that I want to tone down the reputation when I rewrote the introduction to the article using the world revolutionary, which is about as big of a word as you'll probably ever find in an encyclopaedia.


 * I take your claim that my I regard my content as bulletproof as evidence that you didn't read my response to your comments on the advantages and disadvantages section where I point out that my writing isn't perfect. Rephrasing what I've written, expanding on it, editing it, is something that I welcome.  Simply deleting it to reinstate a previous version without sources is something I'll contest.  It doesn't help that there are videos on YouTube or guitar players discussing these issues in on-line forums, because neither of those are reliable sources.  A similar point was made by Mildly Mad in the discussion about the list of players, and in addition the point about special knowledge being necessary to identify the bridge used.


 * Your claim that I'm not respectful towards other editors has no merit since I contacted you here on your talk page once our dispute started and a couple of times since, I've encouraged discussion on the article's talk page, and during the dispute I've several times allowed the disputed version to stay for several days to allow for time to discuss it. Also, I've rewritten the introduction, the history, and the advantages and disadvantages sections, all using appropriate sources, so I'm obviously trying to improve the article.  Regards, Nettrom (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)