Talk:Mesa/Boogie

message: I went through and edited up to section 2.7.2, fixing sentence structure and grammar, upgrading the tone of the writing, and removing strongly opinionated sections. If at all possible, I would appreciate if someone would rewrite the remainder of the article, and once it is entirely completed, remove the tags. Bargain Fanta (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have red the article throughout. Although no native english speaker, I am overwhelmed with the comprehensive information. I think the language of the article reflects the language skills of the targeted audience (me). There is no need for "literate article" in my opinion. --BEG 18:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring 

message: As far as I know, David Gilmour uses either Hiwatt or Fender amps.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.20.202.34 (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gilmour used one? 

message: I noted that throughout reading this article there was a very lax tone to it and frequent use was made of authors' own personal opinions (going as far as using the pronoun 'I'). I suggest this article be redesigned and re-written from the ground up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.93.78 (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor structure, very opinionated. 

message: I'm no expert but it seems like the use of present tense where there should be past and the amount of largely irrelevant material makes this seem very "advertisy"160.39.18.104 02:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Written like an advertisement? 

message: Other than matters of style and grammar, the article seems fine to me... without my having verified any of the information herein through other sources. Can someone either put forth a concrete point disputing the article, or erase the tag altogether? Feel free to address any questions to me through my talk page... --Daniel Villalobos 20:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what's the reason for the tag...? 

message: This article seems to borrow heavily from publicity materials of the firm's.  Is it possible for someone to write a literate article? 198.96.134.61 06:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have red the article throughout. Although no native english speaker, I am overwhelmed with the comprehensive information. I think the language of the article reflects the language skills of the targeted audience (me). There is no need for "literate article" in my opinion. --BEG 18:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Text 

message: Just a small point but wasn't the black album recorded with a Mark IIC+ (Metallica's usual studio amp) slaved into a Marshall 1959SLP?
No, Master of Puppets was recorded the above combination  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.135.133 (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metallica 

message: Well, i have a Strategy 500 (and i remember there was a Strategy 400, too). These are not even mentioned in the article. Why? -Marcus  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.78.64.171 (talk) 13:38, August 21, 2007 (UTC) 
That is because Mesa/Boogie did not submit this article, like some here are saying. This article was obviously written by a Rectifier fanboy, not Randall Smith - otherwise, there'd be more information on other Mesa products. Note the length of the section regarding Rectfiers vs. other amps. A lot of fluff and rambling about Rectifier specs and features are listed because that's what the author knows. Yet, other equally significant models seem to be neglected, while many others are not mentioned at all. This isn't an advertisement. It's an online user review.
Also, concerning the tube bass amps, I'd also like to add that, while the D and 400 series amps are important bass amps in Mesa's history, the Buster series was also significant. Hopefully somebody knowledgable about the Buster bass amps can include them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.140.133 (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategy Series 

message: Someone seems to have dropped in a whole section cribbed from somewhere else (complete with copyright notice) on the Mark series. Perhaps someone who cares about this article can clean it up, and consider making subpages for each model or series? 76.10.153.220 (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split Into Sub Pages For Each Model 

message: Please note the release of the new M9 carbine.210.215.75.3 (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New mesa model 2009 

message: the new Mesa Boogie 2010 updates of the Dual and Triple Rectifiers, and the introduction of the Tranatlantic need to be added to this page. I'll put them up in a few days if nothing has been done. SwampAshSpecial (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New 2010 models 

message: What about the wonderfully diminutive Reverb Rocket series (usually a small combo but I once saw a fab. looking mini-stack)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.40.137.121 (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverb Rocket 

message: The whole thing is unrefd, and serves as an ad for the company. I will remove some of the content, per wp policy.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced advertisement

message: I wrote a part of the section on the Coliseum Series, strictly describing the features based on my experience. How would you like the information on these rare amplifiers to be referenced? We cannot use the Mesa material (manuals or brochures for obvious reasons). I don't see why this content was deleted. Understandably, many areas on this page did come across like an advertisement. But that doesn't justify the deletion of almost the "whole" page. It seems to be a heavily flawed process where one can delete excessively due to paranoia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.82.171 (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of content

message: I think we should go back to this version (06:01, 24 August 2012‎ Mercurywoodrose ) but removing the patented technologies and older products, what do you guys think? Tuner420 (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going back  

message: On the 19th of July 2014, a large amount of content was removed from this page without much justification and apparently without any discussion. I can see that perhaps it was overly verbose for the main page on Mesa, but it was useful information nonetheless. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't think nuking over half the content on a wiki article is something which should be done without some discussion.
Perhaps it could be relocated to a new page dedicated to the Mesa product lineup (past and present)?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.181.126 (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of content