User talk:Sabrebd/Archive 2

Culture of Yorkshire
What WP:Cite actually says is that there should be an inline citation "when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, when quoting someone, when adding material to the biography of a living person, and when uploading an image". Are you challenging the statement that "A distinctive Yorkshire voice in British television is that of the presenter and former journalist Michael Parkinson, born in Barnsley"? It hardly seems likely to be challenged., and if one goes to the article about Michael Parkinson one can verify that that is so. -- Alarics (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What I actually want you to do is just give one reference, in line with the rest of the article, rather than leave it for someone else to do. This is not very much to ask. I am not challenging it, but someone else might. So it is best to allow for that eventuality. If you feel the statement is important enough, please take the trouble of adding a citation. Personally I have no problems with adding info on Parky and think that we might make a small section on distinctive Yorkshire personalities in TV and film-- SabreBD  (talk)  23:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Dick
Inside the two books written by Heckstall-Smith I have in my hands, © duly and only mentions Dick Heckstall-Smith.

Because of ‘official conventions’, u may be right in the ‘straight’ way, but I’m too in the real practical one.

We’re a bit more flexible (realistic ?) in France, either in libraries or... in WP:fr :-)

Up to u…

Best regards from Paris, anyway --Polofrfr (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Lucy Locket
On Lucy Locket, I've just changed the sentence that starts "Catherine Maria Fisher (d. 1767) a German courtesan who was..." to read "Kitty Fisher may have been Catherine Marie Fischer...". Is that what you meant? You might want to fiddle with it if that is not what you meant. Jonathan O&#39;Donnell (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I did. Thanks for catching that one.-- SabreBD  (talk)  09:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Nursery Rhymes
And thanks to you for posting the music. It's very hard to find freely usable music. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 14:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please advise
Hello Ian, I note that you have taken liberty to delete all of my links. Please forgive me for not quite knowing the Wiki way yet, but please consider the following:

www.thecountryblues.com is completely non-commercial. Nothing is sold, no money is exchanged and nothing is advertised--Matheisf (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC).

The objective of this site is to document that the acoustic and traditional blues is alive in the 21st Century. IT IS A GUIDE, A DIRECTORY. We feature articles, a six-hour Podcast blues primer, full profiles of contemporary acoustic blues musicians and more.The Podcast is a program that includes the music of all the musicians to whom it was linked in an extensive, award winning radio documentary. I absolutely believe that it adds to any valid research on the topic, or the individual musicians.

Please take a few minutes to sample the program and you will see that nothing was linked that did not have direct correlation to information provided in the www.thecountryblues.com website. It is an educational resource and a guide.

The Who's Who list has more than 400 worldwide musicians dedicated to this genre. We are actively writing profiles of all of them, and so far have 40 full profiles.

Please take another look at the site. The established links of all the living artists lead to full articles. There are also articles about the old masters like Robert Johnson. You deleted my link to John Jackson. Look on my website and you will see many photos of him, as he was a good friend of mine.

This is not just some irrelevant link effort, but all the links were directly tied to the ongoing effort to keep the blues active and vibrant today.

Please reconsider your across the board wipe-out of everything I am trying to do here. I encourage you to take another look and not to be open minded to the fact that you have allowed many other links to similar directories. This is not a site about me--it is a growing resource for the blues. I beleive this fully meets wiki rules and that I am not in violation. Thanks, Frank Matheis-- musician, radio producer and writer


 * if it's okay for me to intrude - i'm the editor who left several messages on your talk page regarding the link you've been adding to multiple articles, because i was trying to be helpful to you. i hope you've had time to read some of the Wikipedia policies i pointed out to you there, because you'll see that indeed it isn't regarded as okay to barrage articles with a link to your own website, even though it's not a commercial site. among other policies, please see EL, which states "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked."
 * a far better approach is to go to some talk pages of articles that your site is directly relevant to (that means "a few well-chosen ones", not "as many as you can"), point out the ways in which your site is relevant and worthwhile, and allow other interested editors to decide whether or not to add your link. it's even better if you can also find other constructive ways to add to Wikipedia articles, once you get familiar with the relevant policies.  hope that helps Sssoul (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with Sssoul joining this discussion and, as usual, the points above are almost exactly what I would have said. I should add that, normally, after rolling back so many links I would have posted on your talk page to explain the action, but Sssoul, who reverted some other changes, had already done so very clearly and I didn't see much point in repeating it. It is useful advice and well worth consideration. (Also on further point: what is there a reason that you think my name is Ian?)-- SabreBD  (talk)  12:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for picking up in error the name Ian. I am new to Wiki and beleived that a profile I read was yours, when I was trying to figure out the response mechanism. Sorry...

Anyway, now I have to say that I am astonished. Your only answer is "I am the editor and it is OK for me to intrude?" Is this really all it takes? I ask you once more for a fair and objective evaluation. The six hour blues primer Podcast alone should be convincing to anyone that it adds to the history of the blues. All of the links that you deleted tie directly to the site.

If you can provide a meaningful, objective response based on the content of my site and the lack or relevance, please make the case. I have pointed out to you direct educational materials in direct relation to the topic strongly and maintain that every single link is exactly such.

At this point, it really seems to me that you are somehow just exercising power for power's sake and I strongly object to your unwillingness to point to anything other than "rules" , to which I maintain that I am in full compliance.

I reiterate: 1. The site is commercial free 2. The site is a directory and guide to the contemporary acoustic blues 3. It contains a Who's Who list of 400 + blues musicians. 4. It contains a 6 hour radio documentary history of the blues, an internationally broadcasted, award winning program that includes all of the musicians from which you deleted links. 5. It includes articles, reviews, 40+ profiles, photos and more and is steadily growing.

So, please advise your reasons why it is not relevant to the topic! I have seen no violation, and can show direct relevance.

If your only response can be "I am the man", and if you continue to act arbitrarily and unilaterally,then it seems to me that you are doing this more for your own ego self-gratification than for wanting to expand the available resources of the topic.

I for one believe that you are mistaken and I challenge your actions. I request that you advise the check and balance grievance procedure. I cannot believe that you, yourself are the single determinant of this process.

Mostly, I hope that you are not singularly driven by your own ego and that you are at least willing to investigate the site once more, in all fairness.

Thanks,

FM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matheisf (talk • contribs) 12:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * er ... i (not Sabrebd) am the person who left that first reply, as well as some helpful messages on your talk page. calling myself an editor is not a "power play" - it's what we all are on Wikipedia (unless we're just reading).  and i've already pointed out the relevant policy: please click on EL and read what it says, okay?  also please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF, because those are very basic Wikipedia policies - especially since Sabrebd and i are trying to help you. thanks Sssoul (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

At this time I am simply flabbergasted-- I have been defined as a SPAMMer in this processFM? I am a radio producer, former writer for Blues Access,and editor of a website devoted to the contemporary acoustic blues and at this time I strongly object to these practices.

Please at least clarify who my communication partners are and what the grievance process is? I am not in violation of any policy! I have provided amply evidence of that. So far NOBODY has made concrete points about how and why my site does not relate to the topic. If you are in fact trying to help me, a good staring point would be to take the time to look at the content of my site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matheisf (talk • contribs) 13:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * please read what the EL policy says: "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked." that is a concrete point that's been made several times already.
 * again: you should go to the talk pages of a few articles you feel your site is particularly relevant to and ask other editors to consider including a link to your site. that is a concrete recommendation for how you should be approaching this.
 * i don't understand what you mean by "Please at least clarify who my communication partners are". are you asking who i am? i'm one of several thousand volunteer editors of Wikipedia.
 * the steps available for dispute resolution are outlined at WP:Dispute resolution.
 * you may also wish to comment on the external links noticeboard, where i've asked for some assistance in getting you familiarized with Wikipedia policies. getting acquainted with Wikipedia policies is essential if you hope to make lasting contributions to the encyclopedia.
 * hope that helps Sssoul (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect you are not going to consider this comment in the spirit it is intended, but nevertheless: there is no collusion here, and no ganging up, in fact just the reverse, I have backed off from the discussion in order to minimise confusion and so as not to bombard you with repeated information. All we seek to do is to follow Wikipedia guidelines and to help editors new to Wikipedia to understand those. We have also done our best to be courteous and helpful, as I hope you may come to see. If you seek some additional process Sssoul has pointed out the routes available above.-- SabreBD  (talk)  14:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

--Matheisf (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)I have heard for many years that Wiki suffers from the abuse of petty individuals who derive pleasure and a sense of inflated self-worth by subjugating others. Now I see it first hand. You have inappropriately misidentified me as a spammer and deleted my links. All subsequent actions and communications were singularly to support this error and to justify your actions. You never had the decency and hutzpah to go back for a second look because you are so intoxicated by the power over others that this action has given your inflated egos, that you completely failed to ever objectively evaluate the merit of the information you refused. It is very evident that both of you apply arbitrary criteria, when, if and however you feel. The result is that you avoided very relevant topical educational material from being linked. The merit of the content in question was never your concern. This is blind authority at its worst. It is interesting that you mysteriously allow some links arbitrarily and disallow others. Clearly, most of the links on the sites were also placed by someone representing the site. This is nothing short of an abuse and a disgraceful action. Review the links on all the sites where you deleted mine and tell me who placed those links, you hypocritical, self-appointed obstructionists.

--Matheisf (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Furthermore, you dare assert "there is no collusion here, no ganging up". In what spirit exactly is it intended? Any reasonable person can clearly see by you self-revelatory dialogue in another page that this is exactly nothing but an ambush. You are about as fair minded as a KKK lynchmob. I quote: "Blues/Country spam

Appreciate your catch on this. I have reverted all of the links to country/blues spammed over the last 2 days. I didn't add anything further to the user talkpage as I felt you had dealt with the matter as fully as can be done. Keep up the good work.--SabreBD (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

glad to be of service - i also posted about it here, so maybe someone else will pitch in. meanwhile thanks for all the brilliant work you're doing on music articles - i hope you feel very appreciated on a regular basis. Sssoul (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the comment on the music articles. Normally on Wikipedia one has to take silence as consent.--SabreBD (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Having two people talk to this editor seems to be confusing him, I will let you keep the lead and support you anyway I can.--SabreBD (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)"

You thought you had the right to censor me and falsely presumed me to be a spammer. When I did not know how to respond to your various warnings, you colluded to shut me down. First, you said no commercial site. Mine is not commercial.Then you said "no off topic sites" Mine is perfectly on topic. Then you came up with one thing after another, digging deep in the rule book until you seemingly found something to justify your actions.

Unfortunately, it seems that on Wikipepdia, people with fascistic tendencies can operate with impunity. The audacity for you to make this action appear to be "helping me" borders on ludicrous.

I hope this makes you feel really strong, big and important to yourself. FM

hope this helps ...
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sssoul (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on Boy Band
You made some nice points. As you probably guessed, I was hoping to stimulate discussion, and you've certainly set the discussion in a constructive direction. I'd be pleased if the article simply indulged in a little less hand-waving and OR. Best regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you raised it. It really needs something done. As it is, as I know you are aware, it is just a magnate for "me too" entries and OR.-- SabreBD  (talk)  23:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

JANET!
I haven't graced your talk page with this little number yet: File:Comic-GlaadAwards copy.jpg. Most people get a kick out of it. Inspired by an actually event, though I didn't actually end up hospitalized. I'm also close to getting my second FA. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  13:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ouch. Thanks for that. Good luck with the FA status. I would offer to help but apart from a bit of copy editing I don't think there is much I could do.-- SabreBD  (talk)  09:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Its fine. I've already got three supports, so I don't think it will have any trouble passing. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  22:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, and Happy Holidays. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814 and offering any advice? I had someone give it a copy edit and I'd like some more feedback before I nominate for FA. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  00:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi and seasons greetings. Sure, I will have a look tomorrow, as just off to bed.-- SabreBD  (talk)  00:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankyou! The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  01:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You changed
Why? Do you know the importance of Beach Boys? 1965 the group made classic albuns, but most only know importance of pet sounds.I ask for your kindness to turn my text. Don't Worry Baby is so important when the song of the Zombies 1964. Big hug (Mago266 (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC))


 * I am aware of the importance of the Beach Boys, that was not the reason for the revert, but it was done because the sources did not support what was said. You may wish to familiarise yourself with the Wikipedia's guidelines, particularly WP:REF, WP:V, WP:WW and WP:CITE. I took some time to check out each of the references and only by following a link on one did I manage to substantiate that one of the albums had orchestration, if I missed something that directly supported the points made then please feel free to point it out. I also have to say that the way you inserted the text, out of chronological order, would, in any case, have been problematic to the article as it changed the meaning of the text. If you are going to make such a major change it is normal to discuss it on the article talk page and get consensus with the other editors. I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia, but please bear in mind that the object of an editor here is to improve articles, not to support any particular band or point of view.-- SabreBD  (talk)  19:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In 1965 The Beatles benefited from the classical music skills of George Martin, who used a string quartet in the productions of "Yesterday" and "Eleanor Rigby" and harpsichord on "In My Life".

I wrote about the use of french horns and harpsichords, zither, accordion, timpani and many many others, and was deleted.

About the quote you're right, but I guarantee the logic of my text and knowledge of the group. Example: Today & Summer Days are more sophisticated and have more instrumentation than the Beatles (Help & Rubber soul). The media has protected most of the albums of the British. I like very much the Beatles and British groups, but it is important to have a consensus. Surfer Girl (1963) was a important album on instrumentation and arrangements. Don't Worry Baby (1964) was a response to Phil Spector. Be My Baby of Phil Spector (1963) was very important too.

I'll search citations, but is not easy to find good quotes about Beach Boys.

Can you revert my text? If not, add the instrumentation of Beach Boys quoted by me. I speak portuguese and is difficult for me, but thank's for attention. (Mago266 (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC))


 * I am not sure I can explain this any more clearly. If you can give valid sources then the edits can go in, but they will need to be in a different form. I hope that helps.-- SabreBD  (talk)  18:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I finally found good references and I edited.

I fix a chronology: "Walk Away Renee" is 1966. It was written as 1965. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mago266 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings (Mago266 (talk))


 * Ok, I have edited the comments to fit in with the article. It is not an article about the Beach Boys, so everybody pretty much gets a sentence.-- SabreBD  (talk)  17:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, You're right. Good editions and greetings! (Mago266 (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

Swamp Rock & Swamp Pop
Thanks for adding the redirect from "swamp rock" to "swamp pop". They are really two different genres, however, and I hope someone will write an entry for "swamp rock" to include CCR, Tony Joe White, and others who are lumped into that category. Maybe I'll start a stub for it. Sincerely, --Skb8721 (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. Perhaps a good start would be to expand the little bit that is in Swamp Pop, which could become a sub-section and maybe be re-exported to the Swamp rock page when it is big enough. I will keep a look out for sources.-- SabreBD  (talk)  18:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Little Richard Article
I just wanted to comment to express my appreciation for your valuable input and keeping a watchful eye on the Little Richard article, which I am praying ends up a FA. I have inserted a lot of info over some time which has made it much more informative and Sssoul has helped to refine this info from time to time so that it reads in a truly encyclopedic manner. Your flair for and expertise in history is apparent and I just wanted to say thank you for what you are doing on Wikipedia. --Smoovedogg (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. I try my best and I think the LR article is getting there thanks to your and Sssoul's efforts.-- SabreBD  (talk)  08:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you think "Penniman" should be used consistently through the article or "Little Richard?" If Penniman, when is it approciate to use LR in the article?--Smoovedogg (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Dave Pegg
I'm going to leave him alone now, having fixed all the date formats; but what I've primarily done is to tidy up the references. This has cut a lot of clutter out of the references section in two ways: (i) by using for all the website refs, the webpage title is the clickable link, rather than the bare URL; (ii) by adding a "References" section, this can contain the full description for the books (using ), allowing the "Notes" entry to be reduced to a minimum (author, year, page). I identified four books where this could be done, covering (I think) 21 refs. Further, the note is linked to the full entry for the book, because I used for the note, and provided the  with harv. I've also reduced the number of ref numbers from 37 to 31. No material has been lost: it's simply that in some cases, the same webpage, or page in a book, was cited multiple times giving rise to duplicated refs. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Its good work, thanks. When I worked on expanding and cleaning up that article I was new to using citations on Wikipedia. In fact the way you used cite book to provide a link to the reference section was the first time I had seen this, and it seems a good system. You live and learn. Thanks again.-- SabreBD  (talk)  18:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been editing since end April 2009, and I've forgotten how I found out how to do the various referencing techniques. Looking back at which Help: or Wikipedia: pages that I might have used, they don't seem familiar; some stress the non-linking methods (without using any templates at all) and some go over the top with Harvard style vs Vancouver style and all the rest, and overcomplicate it. I always meant to work up a readable help page; my current (unfinished) attempt is at User:Redrose64/Referencing Demo.
 * Quick precis of the final version:
 * In the article text, use throughout. This eliminates the need for
 * Have a "Notes" section containing.
 * Have a "References" section containing a list of the books, etc. and use, or  as appropriate for each one, remembering to add harv to every single one.
 * Admittedly this doesn't match Dave Pegg, because I used  instead of, and all the web citations are in the article body not down in "References", but, for the books at least, the principle is similar and the effect is identical. It can be done for web pages too, but you really need an author to get the linking to work. Have a look at Reading Southern railway station which fully goes by the method of my precis (but has no true web page citations). --Redrose64 (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that is actually very useful. I will have a try as soon as I find something appropriate to test it out on.-- SabreBD  (talk)  22:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Baroque music of the British Isles
Hi. I see you never started the new article. Any particular reason? Would you like me to do it instead? -- Klein zach  23:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was just waiting in case anyone objected and while i finished another project. I am on holiday so will probably start it tomorrow if that is ok.-- SabreBD  (talk)  23:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks. -- Klein zach  23:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

hey. i noticed that you deleted one of my many important sentences involving the revolutionary war. ya. sooo why did you do it. nobody knows. get a life and stop deleting my articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.206.70 (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome
To the death project - hope you enjoy/can help etc - cheers SatuSuro 11:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks I look forward to it.-- SabreBD  (talk)  11:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

At the moment the main thing is the new portal that polinosisss has taken to great heights - tweaking the portal into the project template - and continuing to search for more categories and articles within the scope -then the slog - assessing the 'caught' articles - all good fun :) SatuSuro 11:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings.. can you help?
Hi, I'm a computer challenged wikipedian, oxymoron that it is, but can learn and am educated (however, not to the level as yourself)! Anyway, I wanted to thank you for the outstanding job you did on the graph for the membership of Fairport Convention. I think it would be good to have more photos there, but am unsure of other opinions and wondered what you thought. I do have access to a lot from the 40th Anniversary concert (Cropredy), and did replace the main photo. Perhaps you can teach me, and I can assist you? My area of interest is music, within that, artists who have left an impact on culture, and within that, guitarists, roots, blues, and blues-rock musicians, with an emphasis on slide guitarists. Aside from that, I'm good at finding difficult photos, and have uploaded a couple hundred, and placed them all. Leave me a note on my talk page if you think any of this is helpful to either of us! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to help. I agree that the article needs more photos. Such an addition is not usually controversial among editors so we can probably go ahead without a debate on the talkpage. The big drawback with posting photos on Wikipedia is not so much technical but legal. To cut a long story short, only pictures that are copyright free can be used. If they have been placed on Flikr by someone who own the copyright and has tagged them for public use they can go in, otherwise they will simply be deleted. I wonder what is the status of your photos.-- SabreBD  (talk)  09:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ha! I take it you haven't seen my userpage yet. Even before I registered with Wikipedia, using an IP address, I began seeking out photos several years ago, and have grown quite knowledgeable as to CC-BY-SA images and the Creative Commons licenses necessary. I assure you-- I've uploaded several hundred photos to EN.WP, and placed them all. It's half of what I do: look for photos for articles missing them, and those with either blurry, outdated photos, or other issues. The list of uploaded photos on my userpage is incomplete, but should give you an idea of the number I've scouted out and persuaded pro-photographers to give up their copyrights, in favor of Creative Commons. Oh, a couple of things: First, I left a note on Fairport Convention's talk page about the curious lack of any mention of the membership of Alun Davies (like Gerry Conway was in Cat Stevens band. I has been performing with Fairport Convention for the past 3 years. I've been trying to get a photo of him for about 4 years now. Can't find many of them, and always they have copyrights. Otherwise, I'm really looking for help on the Rory Gallagher article, which was almost ignored, for the most part, since 2005. I began the initial editing and referencing, but any help editing or other help, or suggestions for the massive discography would be very welcome!!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

AIV
You reported a user whose last warning was May 2008, and has had only one edit since ... I'm not sure how this is either "recent" or "recently warned" - I was hoping that maybe there was something off-wiki that I was unaware of ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nuisance user
Hi Sabrebd.. my attention was drawn to user 98.113.216.32 on hard rock page...where he keeps editing the notable bands listed (The Beatles, The Yardbirds, The Animals) in 1960's section, by continually changing his own personal criteria for inclusion of these early forms. His last reason.."The rest didn't even make VH1's top 100".. which has got nothing to do with early examples of hard rock. Grateful if you could ensure this user stops. Thanks. JackFreeman190 (talk 00:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I will try to keep an eye on. Thanks for letting me know.-- SabreBD  (talk)  23:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Images in you User Space
Hey there Sabrebd, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free images are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:Sabrebd/Sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Addition not at that citation"
Explain. Mika, a singer songwriter whose 2007 album sold over 5 million, fifth best-selling album in the world in 2007, and received a Grammy nomination. He has dwarfed David Gray. What does "addition not at that citation mean" as regards his inclusion???AmyzzXX (talk 00:47, 04 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could save me some work and let me know which article this was.-- SabreBD  (talk)  08:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

EMPRESS OF SOUL
He refers to the eyewitness account of Kleopatra Girl's Ringside Report at the Ella Awards when the Society of Singers officially designated Gladys Knight as The Empress of Soul(called that as earlier as the 60's). The insulting source you prefer relies upon this original source and in fact, without justification, replaced it.
 * Below is the original source and posting by Bookkeeperoftheoccult 14 March 2009 of Gladys Knight and Empress of Soul title.
 * I'm leaving this on Bookkeeperoftheoccult's talk page as well.
 * Empress of Soul||Gladys Knight || U.S. || Comprendo (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * /* Female titles */ re-added Sabrebd's preferred sourceComprendo (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My talkpage is not the place to discuss changes to an article, that is the talkpage of the article, so that all editors can contribute. Once again. Please open a section on the talkpage of the article, here.-- SabreBD  (talk)  22:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Comprendo (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Children's Music
Hi. My name is Sheldon Posen. I am Curator of Canadian Folklife at the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Gatineau, Quebec, Canada's national museum.

In 1993 I published an article in the Canadian Journal for Traditional Music called, "The Beginnings of the Children's (Folk) Music Industry in Canada: An Overview." I recently had occasion to look at children's music again, so I re-read my article and, among others, also read yours in Wikipedia. I believe you have used my article as a basis for some of your background material, but not given it as a reference. If this is true, I'd very much appreciate your adding my name and the title of my article to your bibliographical section.

I must also say that I was surprised to read an article covering children's music of the past 35 years, even if the focus is on the American experience of it, that didn't mention Sharon, Lois, and Bram. I believe they were seminal figures in the North American children's folk music industry as a whole (everyone knew everyone else back then), and deserve credit for their pioneering, high quality work.

That said, I found your article is extremely useful and will certainly cite it in any writing I may do on the subject in future.

Best,

Sheldon Posen —Preceding unsigned comment added by SheldonPosen (talk • contribs) 18:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there Sheldon. I am not quite sure why you think I have used your article, which, I have to admit, I have never come across until now - but which I have now found and looked at and incidently found very useful and informative. My rather minor contributions to the The Wikipedia article in question are all almost entirely based on D. A. Jasen, Tin Pan Alley: An Encyclopedia of the Golden Age of American Song (Taylor & Francis, 2003) and I suppose it is possible that they were using your material. You can see my major edit here [|here]. I never didn't get around to cleaning up the whole article, which needs to be properly sourced throughout. As your article exists in an online form it is possible that a previous editor has lifted some of it and stuck it in here, which is against a number of major Wikipedia policies. Are there particular passages in the Wikipedia article that you think might be lifted direct from you? In which case if you can identify them we should rapidly change them (unless quoted and referenced they really should have been rephrased) and certainly give due credit to you as the source.-- SabreBD  (talk)  19:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Pop music
Hi, I posted a new message on the pop music article talk page, in which I am proposing the addition of a paragraph on notable pop music performers and groups, with the proviso that any material would have to be backed up by a reputable third-party source. Perhaps I am getting it wrong, but my reading of other major articles in Wikipedia on music genres seems to suggest that there is a broad consensus amongst Wikipedia editors that, in an article on "Musical genre X" examples of notable bands and performers from "musical genre X" are given. In the talk page message, I give a few examples, like the rock music article, the Blues article, and the Jazz article, each of which describe the impact of many performers and groups. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know, I will take a look when I have a little time.-- SabreBD  (talk)  21:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * i reckon you're quite busy, but there are now a couple of discussions on Talk: Pop music about content and the sources used to define the genre that could use your input when you have time. thanks and swing on Sssoul (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK I will try to get into the process. Thanks, as ever.-- SabreBD  (talk)  21:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * thank you kindly Sssoul (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Sabrebd, can you help refresh my memory about the sources for the assertion that pop music is a genre that emerged in the late 1950s as a "softer" alternative to rock & roll? one of the ones cited was Frith, which i don't have access to; the other was this allmusic page. i seem to recall the allmusic page saying nearly word-for-word that "pop music is a genre that emerged in the late 1950s as a 'softer' alternative", except that they anachronistically used "rock" to mean "rock & roll". but in the current discussion - for example here: Talk:Pop_music - some editors seem to be saying the cited sources don't support that assertion at all.

i've been trying to lay a bit low in the discussion, to see what other editors think, and to avoid "debates" (which aren't my style even when i have time, which i don't right now) but i would like to respond somehow to the allegation that the long-standing definition of the subject of the article isn't supported by the sources – not to be combative, you understand, just ... surely the handful of editors that were working on the article back then weren't just making stuff up! 8) Sssoul (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I will have a look into the sources and get back to you.-- SabreBD  (talk)  18:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks Sssoul (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Southern Metal / Hardcore
Hi

Re:the Southern Rock edit, I understand the need for sourcing but what would you consider sufficient sourcing for that edit, which only adds the genre of the artists already listed (originally incorrectly listed as metal). I did not think anyone would have a problem with it as it stands but if they did, they only need to read up on the bands listed to see they are not metal. Why and what source would be necessary? Harshmustard (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Harshmustard

edit: somehow got an incorrect topic


 * This really belongs on the article talk page so I am transferring it there.-- SabreBD  (talk)  20:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Cropredy article
Hi Sabrebd, I notice you moved this photo and left a summary saying "Nice pic - moved down a little to ease crowding". Thank you for the compliment – much appreciated. I took that shot with a pro photographer's Nikon which he, rather nervously, let me use. Your move has, indeed, improved the page layout BTW. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the festival or its line-ups but that photo shows the excellent dub-reggae band Dreadzone on stage last year on Saturday 15 Aug. Also, I see you have done a good deal of work on the Rock Music, Folk_music_of_England and Fairport Convention articles and on Honorific_nicknames_in_popular_music. Nerdishly, I know quite a lot about Fairport and Cropredy so feel free to drop by my talk page if you ever need additional info about those subjects. Drop by anyway – all welcome. Best wishes Andy F (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for dropping by Andy. I have been to Cropredy, but it was a long time ago now, and I have followed Fairport and its members for several decades now. I was particularly pleased because the pic captures some of the scale of the event, and isn't just another photo of Fairport on stage. Thanks for noticing the work on the various articles. I also re-edited the Fairport Article some time ago, but it is probably beginning to need some work again, so we may have something to discuss there. All the best.-- SabreBD  (talk)  20:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I just visited the article and it's not bad although a bit short on detail in the 1998 to the Present section. I did quite a bit on it five years ago so, as you say, may be it's time for another look. Andy F (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Music of Denmark
Hi Sabrebd. I picked up your interest in rock and related music from some of the talk pages. As you also seem to have taken an interest in Danish music, I was wondering if you could spend a few minutes looking through Music of Denmark. I have been trying to update the entire article and while I am pretty familiar with the development of classical music, I am not really an expert on the rock/pop scene. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Please reply here to keep things together. -- Ipigott (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Thanks for dropping me a line. I am not a massive expert on Danish music, but I have a few sources and I will have a look and see what I can do as soon as I have lived up to all my other promises.-- SabreBD  (talk)  20:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Categories
Hey mate, I have started http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:List_of_Salvation_Army_Brass_Bands and am looking to fix the sortkey so that it sorts by territory, at the moment it simply sorts by the first letter of the articles, and since they are all list articles they are all sorting under L. Help would be greatly appreciated :) Parradudes (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Could Revolver_(french_band) be in the baroque pop band list ?
Hi Sabrebd I had put Revolver_(french_band) in the list of baroque pop without reference. I think you were right to remove this entry. Although I find I find difficult to classify many bands in just one category, I think that the background of this band and their songs belong to this classification. I cannot at this time find any serious publication supporting this opinion. My best reference would be their official site bio (http://www.revolvermusic.tv/). I'm eager to know if this reference would suffice to you. Please check this entry : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolver_(French_band) for more development. I could need some constructive comments. Thanks Jtrois (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations
Your Post-Britpop article has been named a Wikipedia good article. Edkollin (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the news and the nomination. I really appreciate it.-- SabreBD  (talk)  11:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Always nice to be positive in Wikipedia once in a while.Edkollin (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Urban Gothic
The Last Minute by Stephen Norrington is a definate urban gothic film, so please stop changing it as if you know better. Watch the film before you go making decisions. And yes, I understand you might think I need to cite my source for such a claim, but no, I am the source. I could name every urban/suburban/southern gothic film ever made off the top of my head, by year, director, country, what-have-you, I'm a nerd like that. So lastly, I would appreciate if you stopped deleting the entry of The Last Minute to the urban gothic film core. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.178.179.88 (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but you cannot be the source for any claim on wikipedia, and neither can I. Please read Verifiability. This policy is fundamental to how wikipedia works.-- SabreBD  (talk)  23:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

blah blah blah, watch the movie, read reviews on the internet, The Last Minute and Heartless stay in urban gothic. Whats fundamental to wikipedia is scholarly input by randos like me, and then maybe tightwads like you can come and 'clean' it up with shamwows, but in the meantime you have no honest reasonablity to delete something based on your personal and seemingly uneducated opinion. I'm sorry if i haven't written peer-reviewed disertaions on gothic cinema, but if you ask anybody who knows half of what that genre evokes, they would agree that The Last Minute and Heartless stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.178.179.217 (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Folk music
re your comment: I'd agree with inclusion of the Watersons, but I don't understand what you meant - didn't Martin Carthy play with them for a while? Or were they from another generation? Hohenloh + 12:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yes he did play with them, well still does in a sense since he married one. I think I was being a bit over cautious here and trying to make it clear they were more traditional. I will put them back in with a wikilink. Thanks for getting back to me on this one.-- SabreBD  (talk)  13:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey you have done a wonderful job protecting Honorific nicknames over this long period. Its through so many changes since I started it, it's hardly recognizable to me. You and ROD stablized it. something I could not do. Thank you. The Almighty King (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. Well its really nice to get a thanks, especially when you have changed someone's work so much. It helped that we managed to find a defensible position (a good result for afd) and although its hard work, I think it has managed to stay a pretty rigourous article, although I expect that it will need periodic cleanups as I suspect we have missed a few dubious sources. I am mainly grateful to Rod for taking on a share of the duties, not least because it lets me believe I am doing the right thing. Your comments much appreciated.-- SabreBD  (talk)  19:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss your suggestions instead of reverting all my contributions constantly
Please refrain from having edit wars with me (they are pointless) and instead discuss your suggestions in the discussion pages of those articles. I understand that you are trying to promote the less popular British music genres but it makes no sense to put them at the top of the decade articles and to delete the most popular British music genre of the 2000s completely (Alternative rock). I hope we would be able to work together in a civil, respectful and productive way through discussing our difference of opinions instead of reverting each other constantly. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not engaging in a edit war. I also did not simply revert all your changes but attempted to incorporate them. You have to remember WP:BRD: you have been bold, I reverted some of it, now we discuss it, that it is mainly incumbent on the person suggesting a change to argue for it. I do not agree that it makes more sense to have popular genres first, since many genres are derived from ones that came before, it far more sense to keep the order that was in the articles already. If you want to argue for a change on any of these articles you should do it on those talk pages and I will engage with that discussion in an open minded way.-- SabreBD  (talk)  17:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My main problem is that you revert ALL my contributions simply because you do not like the order of the sections in the articles. If you insist on having a certain order - change it back to that order manually (while discussing the reason for doing so in the discussion pages) and refrain from reverting everything. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Or you could leave the order as it is, until we have a chance to discuss it and make the other changes. However, please check the MOS and consider that a balance of pictures looks better than overcrowding. Which is what I attempted to achieve when I incorporated your other changes.-- SabreBD  (talk)  18:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please explain in all the discussion pages of the articles you reverted why you believe your version is better. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We are making some real progress here, but I would really appreciate it if you could slow down a bit. I go away for a couple of hours and find that you have made changes that you just suggested I make. Wikipedia isnt going away for a while, we can afford to take a couple of days to get things right. Also it would be great if you could give edit summaries for every edit: it takes me ages to work out what exaclty you have done, and if I end up reverting something I might undo something unintentionally. Thanks.-- SabreBD  (talk)  16:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In order to see all the changes I've done in a certain article - all you need to do is to compare ALL my recent revisions for that article (it's a button available in the history page of each article). This option does not always work perfectly when the order of the paragraphs is changed – when that happens you need to compare only the revision in which that happened with the revision before it. If you don't like a certain part of the revisions I made - point it out in the discussion pages and/or if you really disagree please delete ONLY the part you dislike and refrain from reverting all the changes I’ve made.


 * There was and still is a lot of work to be done in these articles, that’s the main reason I don’t write a description every time I make a contribution. All you need to do is to check the revision history and you’ll easily see what I changed. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand how the comparisons work, but it can be hard to see all the changes and summaries are at least as much about why as what has been changed. Having a lot of work to do on an article doesn't really negate the need. It is a pity that you don't give a summary for every edit, because it only takes a few seconds and is considered good practice. It would also be polite and help cut down confusion and potential conflict.-- SabreBD  (talk)  08:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Color contrast issue
Hello. Did you see my previous edit of the Heavymetal template and Extreme metal template, and the edit comment I wrote? Please read Accessibility. I'll copy it on the talk pages of the templates. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for posting. I did. I have posted on the two pages, but this was an attempt to solve that problem and retain the colour. Perhaps I misunderstood the problem.-- SabreBD  (talk)  22:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See Template_talk:Heavymetal to keep the discussions in one place. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks.-- SabreBD  (talk)  19:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Talkback : Template_talk:Heavymetal. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI (Realwords101)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (discussion of edits by User:Realwords101)--Michig (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)