User talk:Sabrebd/Archive 3

Vandalism on Indie Rock
you sent me a msg about doing soemthing rough but i do not know what did if u couldtell me it would be nice thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.254.141 (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Having checked your edits over the last five months it appears that almost all are unconstructive or constitute vandalism. I can only suggest two options. If you are a user sharing a IP address with other users and you want to make constructive edits, I strongly recommend that you register an account, so that your edits are not mixed up with other peoples. If you are the only person editing from that address I can only suggest that if you do not understand why your edits are so often unconstructive that you would be best to stop editing Wikipedia. I hope this helps.-- SabreBD  (talk)  19:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

More vandalism on Indie Rock
It appears I'm not the first one to be accused of "vandalism" on Wiki ie for allegedly doing so to the "Indie Rock" entry. I would like to know how this was arrived at, as I did no such thing. I tweaked and otherwise corrected it, and in rather minor ways to boot. If you're going to accuse someone of something like this, you should at least make it clear why you are making such an accusation and not assume the worst. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.172.88 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not quite sure why you would consider deleting valid sections from the infobox and information in the lead of an article on Wikipedia as legitimate tweaks. Perhaps for some reason you were unaware that you had done this in your series of edits, in which case it would a good idea just to check all your changes (using the third of the three boxes below the edit display) before clicking on save, just to make sure there is no accidental vandalism. I hope this is helpful to you.-- SabreBD  (talk)  07:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

65.87.172.88 (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC) I hope replying in this way is acceptable. Then maybe we have a misunderstanding, including a different opinion on what is "valid" in this case. FYI and as stated in the entry itself, "indie rock" describes a method of distribution/sales/etc...it is *not* a "genre" of music (despite some people's attempts to paint it as such), and therefore by extension has no sub-genres. If you disagree, fine, but that does not justify accusations of vandalism or threats of being blocked. I'm not ranting here, just my .02. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.172.88 (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have a view on a article that differs from the established consensus you should take it, and your evidence, to the talk page of the relevant article and try to build a new consensus. You probably shouldn't just delete lines of an infobox, especially without offering an edit summary, as that is pretty much bound to be seen as vandalism. I am happy to accept your assurance that these were good faith edits and have stricken them through on your talkpage to indicate this.-- SabreBD  (talk)  18:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

65.87.172.88 (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you, it's appreciated. Agree; I should have at least put a summary/explanation.

Hard rock
Greetings. Regarding the mention of heartland rock in the hard rock article, the reason I removed it is because, being in the 1970s section of the article, readers could easily get the wrong impression that the music of these groups was known as heartland rock in '70s. That is simply not the case. Looking at the heartland rock article again I see it also gives that impression and is somewhat misleading. The term "heartland rock" was not commonly used until the early 1980s and was as much a geographical reference as it was a style of music. In the mid-to-late '80s, the term became more closely associated with the distinct musical style of artists such as Bob Seger and John Mellencamp. By the end of the '70s Kansas was still often referred to as progressive rock and Styx was often called arena rock. I don't disagree that they could be labeled "heartland rock", it's just that the term wasn't applied until later. Piriczki (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. You know I am really not that bothered about having this in the hard rock article, so lets just take it out as it may be difficult to deal with the nuances of meaning. Perhaps we can try to reflect them in more detail in the Heartland rock article along the lines you set out here and then worry about inclusion elsewhere later.-- SabreBD  (talk)  13:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Albion Band
Re: "They were The Albion Country Band really for only one album and it is not even clear that they were really the same band (no continuity of personnel). They were clearly the Albion Band for thirty-two years. As I have been going through the English Folk, Electric/Folk Rock articles I found they are very rarely called anything but the Albion Band. Clearly this page should be moved to Albion Band and Albion Country Band should redirect there. --Sabrebd (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)" I have tried moving it as the ACB & ADB names only cover 1971-77 (2 albums each) but the redirect prevents it; perhaps it can be referred to an editor who can make the change.--Felix folio secundus 05:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I had completely forgotten about this move, or perhaps I tried and couldn't do it. I will see about requesting a move by an admin. Thanks for the attempt and for reminding me.-- SabreBD  (talk)  06:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

British rhythm and blues
Bravo! Excellent article - well done. I've given it a couple of tweaks - if there's anything you don't like, get back to me. As a new article, are you going to put it into WP:DYK? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC) PS: But, I think the summary section in the Rhythm and blues article is probably a little too long, and gives it undue emphasis in comparison to the (much much more important) US scene. I know you're planning to look at the whole of that article - so, I could now cut back the British section to about, say, half its present length, or alternatively wait until you expand the US section with refs etc. What do you think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that and for the tweaks, which are very useful - its always very helpful to have another pair of eyes, so I hope that wasn't too much work. I am very happy if you cut the final section in Rhythm and blues, I can always review it when I look at the total article, which needs something similar for the entire genre. I have to admit I have never put anything into WP:DYK, but I will take a look at it now. Thanks again for the help and encouragement.-- SabreBD  (talk)  20:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want any help/advice with DYK, let me know (or, I'll just nominate it myself!) BTW I've added this as an external source.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you would be kind enough to nominate it for DYK that would be great. I will try to catch up on how it works later. My kids are now off from school so I now have a 6 week job full time job as a taxi, so I will probably not have as much time for Wikipedia as usual. Cheers.-- SabreBD  (talk)  21:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Pretty much the same life here! Will do DYK though.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A couple of things occurred to me overnight. Firstly, should there be a paragraph about other artists, particularly singers, who emerged from that scene - I'm thinking particularly of Rod Stewart (Shotgun Express - no article!  There is now... ), Elton John (Bluesology), and Long John Baldry. And what about Geno Washington and Jimmy James - a slightly different sub-genre as they were "genuine" US artists.  Also, it might be useful, in my view, to place the successful British recordings of (often obscure) original American R&B recordings in a list format, listing the original artists - like Bessie Banks for "Go Now", etc.  I just mention it, because, although I might get round to it eventually, you might get round to it first!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Both good ideas. I will certainly try to work in the other artists. The list of covers might take a bit longer, but if one of us gets started the other can alway chip in.-- SabreBD  (talk)  10:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A list for starters. I'm sure there are others as well - I've only listed ones that made the UK chart:
 * "Come On", Rolling Stones, entered chart July 63, reached # 21, original by Chuck Berry
 * "It's All Over Now", Rolling Stones, July 64, # 1, The Valentinos
 * "Do Wah Diddy Diddy", Manfred Mann, July 64, # 1, The Exciters
 * "Little Red Rooster", Rolling Stones, Nov 64, # 1, Howlin' Wolf
 * "Good Morning Little Schoolgirl", The Yardbirds, Nov 64, # 44, Sonny Boy Williamson
 * "Go Now", The Moody Blues, Dec 64, # 1, Bessie Banks
 * "Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood", The Animals, Jan 65, # 3, Nina Simone
 * "Baby Please Don't Go", Them, Jan 65, # 10, Big Joe Williams
 * "Every Little Bit Hurts", Spencer Davis Group, Feb 65, # 41, Brenda Holloway
 * "Bring It On Home To Me", The Animals, Mar 65, # 7, Sam Cooke
 * Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice. I will check back over my sources for any others. I have made a start on the solo artists section, which is on the sandbox page, hopefully it will be complete tomorrow.-- SabreBD  (talk)  20:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Some more:
 * "If You Gotta Make A Fool Of Somebody", Freddie and the Dreamers, May 63, # 3, James Ray
 * "Twist and Shout", Brian Poole and the Tremeloes, July 63, # 1, The Isley Brothers
 * "Searchin'", The Hollies, Aug 63, #12, The Coasters
 * "Do You Love Me", Brian Poole and the Tremeloes, Oct 63, # 1, The Contours
 * as above, The Dave Clark Five, Oct 63, # 30
 * "Stay", The Hollies, Nov 63, # 8, Maurice Williams and the Zodiacs
 * "Um Um Um Um Um Um", Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders, Oct 64, # 5, Major Lance
 * Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a couple of paragraphs on "genuine" and solo artists, perhaps you could just check them over and think about whether there is anything in error or missing in them. Now I just need to find an appropriate picture to balance up the article: sadly I cannot find the provenience of all the great Bluesology and Steampacket pics. I haven't managed to check the cover versions yet, but I think you've done a great job here and we probably have enough to put up with the intention of adding to it later. All the best.-- SabreBD  (talk)  17:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've given it a couple of tweaks - nothing of substance I hope. But I have another thought, and that is that we ought to mention the importance of British R&B fans like Mike Leadbitter, Dave Godin, David Nathan and others, who did a lot of work both to research and to promote American R&B music - particularly in the UK, but also back to the USA, where the music was not being fully appreciated at the time, certainly not by academically respectable researchers.  The problem I have at the moment is that I'm only able to make occasional visits here, rather than devoting large chunks of time to this.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has raised an interesting point here. What do you think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He's accepted my argument, so all good on that front. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I probably need to come back to this later today or tomorrow as I what I think is not very charitable right now. I would have to say "what rhythm and blues from 1980 onwards"? There were virtually no new acts of any note (I can only think of one) and the festival circuit that started up in the early 90s was largely for surivors. Any new acts have tended to be much more pure blues than R&B. Perhaps we can add a paragraph to that effect, but it will be hard to source. On the other hand perhaps I will feel more charitable after lunch and come up with some angle.-- SabreBD  (talk)  09:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So... I guess you won't like this then... !! Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I like it fine, but its usually categorized as Blue eyed soul and not R&B. I did have a notional plan of pointing to the Blue-eyed soul article at the end of this one, for what comes after about 75, but its a yet another pretty poor article. This is categorised as R&B in the contemporary sense I think.-- SabreBD  (talk)  10:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes - I think some links to early 70s bands, and then pub rock and bands like Dr Feelgood, should cover it, together with some cross-refs to the Northern soul scene and later festivals - as well as a mention of what is now called "R&B" (that is, "contemporary R&B") and how that relates to people like Craig David. I'll probably be unable to get back to the article until next week sometime.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Great. I have started sketching something out in the sandbox, almost exactly on those lines. I should have something for you to have a look at when you have a bit more time next week. Keep up the good work.-- SabreBD  (talk)  13:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Heavy metal genres
what vandalism are you talking about ? i haven't distorted any article in any serious manner i have only changed the genres.you seem to be taking silly matters seriously why?Val hallen 16:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Val hallen (talk • contribs)


 * Your editing is disruptive. It has been explained to you several times that you need to gain consensus on talk pages before making changes to music genres on established articles. I doubt you will be able to find this evidence because many of your edits seem to be nonsense. Your editing is also disruptive on talk pages, where you keep adding several headings in the wrong place and then not posting anything, which makes it extremely difficult to use the talk page for the purpose for which it is intended: discussing improvements to an article. You also keep deleting and changing your comments, making it very hard to continue a conversation. If you wish to withdraw some point you have make on a talkpage you should not remove it put strike it through like this (if you click on edit at you will see how this is done). You may not be aware of it or appreciate it, but you have been given considerable latitude given the number of your disruptive edits and the attempts of editors to help you, in the hope that you can bring yourself to conform to Wikipedia's guidelines. I hope that you be able to do so from now on. I am happy to help you try to understand and follow these guidelines, but repeated disruption will eventually be considered vandalism and you need to avoid it if you wish to contribute to this encyclopedia.-- SabreBD  (talk)  17:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

music is about Listening and not about reading it from any sources.

besides how can you guarantee the reliability of any source.

how can you possibly read about any music from any source and say ok this song by a particular band should be in this genre.

it does not make any sense at all, unless you have really listened to a song. - val hallen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.133.176 (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please take the time to read the links you have been given about sockpuppetry like this one: WP:ILLEGIT. You cannot simply avoid a block by creating a new account or using different IP. The block on your original IP is temporary and will, all being well, be lifted in a few days, you can then use that to edit. But do not try to get around the blocks by opening new accounts as that is just compounding the breach of Wikipedia policies.-- SabreBD  (talk)  17:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Eddie Bayers/GA1
Hi, thank you for reviewing Eddie Bayers! I corrected the issues that you brought up (and a couple of other references that also didn't go to the correct target). I would love to find a usable picture of him performing but it was hard enough to find the one that I included. Let me know if you have any other thoughts. J04n(talk page) 00:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks!! J04n(talk page) 00:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome. Its a pleasure to deal with a balanced and well researched article. Also thanks for dealing with the minor issues so quickly. Keep up the good work. That moves my nominated article up one - so probably only about 3 months to go. The rubric asks me to ask you to think about reviewing articles yourself, so I'm asking. No pressure.-- SabreBD  (talk)  00:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

toxic song
this rock song listens http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt7Tvge9Iv0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexZachem (talk • contribs) 21:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So your claim for pop rock is that it was later covered by a rock band?-- SabreBD  (talk)  22:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The song contains rock'n'roll elements AlexZachem (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to present evidence from a reliable source for this on the talkpage. This is not the place.-- SabreBD  (talk)  06:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for British rhythm and blues
Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Progressive folk rock
Hiya Sabrebd! Well done on dealing with the somewhat dubious edits that were recently made to the "Electric folk" subsection of the folk rock article. I see that you've created a new Progressive folk rock section and judging from your comments in the edit summary you would value some feedback on it. I think in essence this section is a good idea but I'm going to be annoying by asking why you don't think that this info couldn't be incorporated into the existing "Electric folk" subsection? As far as I can see (and I bow to your greater knowledge on the subject) the likes of Lindisfarne and Amazing Blondel were electric folk or British folk rock bands and therefore belong in the same genre as Pentangle and Fairport et al.

As an aside, I had always understood the phrase "progressive folk" to refer to the likes of Bert Jansch, John Renbourn, Davy Graham and all the other early 1960s stars of the British folk revival. Indeed, in the "folk music revival" section of the folk rock article, it describes these types of performers as being progressive folk and the use of the term in this context is supported by such sources as Britta Sweers' Electric Folk: The Changing Face of English Traditional Music and Michael Brocken's The British Folk Revival 1944-2002. I wonder if you would agree that it's correct to use the term "progressive folk" in connection with the likes of Jansch, Renbourn, Graham etc? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Kohoutek. Thanks for dealing with the other bits of the editing. I left them as I didn't want to seem to just be reverting everything. You have preempted me as I was about to ask you to take a look at the new section. The term progressive folk definitely does apply to Jansch et. al, but although Pentangle electrified, its not clear to me that these artists fulfill the rock part of the criteria, since they remained almost exclusively acoustic as solo artists, although it could be argued that their use of blues and jazz nudges them into this camp. The second problem is that bands like Lindisfarne and a handful of others don't really fit under electric folk, as they didn't do traditional folk on electric instruments. So I was really scraping around to find a way of dealing with these acts. Blondel are an even trickier case, since they did medieval and medieval style material on acoustic instruments - but they are often classified as medieval folk rock, more on attitude than sound I think. All this probably shows that I am a bit conflated about this myself and maybe I just need to give it a bit of time to sort it all out in my mind. The British progressive folk figures could certainly appear as an inspiration to later acts (including Paul Simon and Dylan) and then perhaps be mentioned where they electrified. I don't know whether you have read the Folk baroque article, which might be a useful starting point (or place to borrow from). In case I didn't say it recently, thanks for all your sterling work on the folk rock article, which has been much improved by your efforts.-- SabreBD  (talk)  13:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'm glad that you agree that Jansch, Graham and the rest are progressive folk. Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that these types of folk singers should be incorporated into your new Progressive folk rock section...you're absolutely right to just focus on electrified late 1960s/early 1970s bands in this section. The likes of Jansch, Renbourn and Graham did, of course, utilize electric instruments on occasion but I don't believe they should be included in either the "Electric folk" or "Progressive folk rock" subsections, since they remained essentially solo acoustic performers (although I would definitely class Pentangle as electric folk). In addition, Jansch and his cohorts on the British folk club scene are already covered in the "folk music revival" subsection. I was just really sounding you out on the use of the term "progressive folk" to describe these performers to make sure that what the folk rock article said was correct.


 * As for Lindisfarne and Amazing Blondel, I can sort of see your rational for categorising them differently to electric folk bands like Fairport because they "didn't do traditional folk on electric instruments." However, I'm going to play devil's advocate and point out that Lindisfarne did on occasion record traditional and contemporary folk songs like "Dingle Regatta" and Woody Guthrie's "Jackhammer Blues", while the Amazing Blondel certainly produced "self-penned compositions in a traditional style", which, as the folk rock article states, is a cornerstone of electric folk.


 * Anyway, thanks for the kind words about my contributions to the folk rock article. I think that the article is looking better than it did but I still have a fair way to go. In particular, I plan to expand the "Other 1960's folk rock" subsection to about two or three times it's current size. There's also the whole "Regional varieties" section which will need a lot of work, particularly in sourcing reliable 3rd party refs and eliminating original research and non-NPOV text. I've been busy on other articles recently but I do intend to return to the folk rock article sometime soon. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We are pretty much in complete agreement here. There is no problem with Blondel, as Medieval folk rock is really a sub-genre of electric folk, I will work them in sometime when I have a moment. I look forward to seeing what you can do with the 60s other folk rock. My only suggestion is that you may have to find some way to break this one down a bit. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help. Cheers.-- SabreBD  (talk)  21:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

LAV GA
Thank you Sabred for the suggestions. I will start working on them soon. Shoot, its weekend here in India and I am already on my way home. :) I generally don't edit on the weekends, so I will be addressing your concerns on monday. Is it fine? — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 11:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's absolutely fine. The only slight problem is that I am going away on Monday, but I have been promised free internet access, so I should be able to check over any changes early in the week.-- SabreBD  (talk)  19:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Addition to honorific nicknames...
Would this addition be acceptable to the article's list? Dan56 (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Music of the United Kingdom (1980s)
Just saw your work on this article. Well done, it's massively improved. Enjoyed reading it.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tuzapicabit, I appreciate the comments. I still plan to get back to all this someday and expand some of these sections, but I think it is a lot more balanced and reflective of the period now, so at least there is something reasonable there to build on.-- SabreBD  (talk)  09:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

RKTVS GA review
Hello! are you going to review the Reality Killed the Video Star article? Thanx! MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 22:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yes I am going to do it. Unfortunately real life got in the way for a while. I will get back on it as soon as I can. Apologies for the delay.-- SabreBD  (talk)  22:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hard Rock
The article Hard Rock you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hard Rock for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Aaron north (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Just came to notice... Congratz, Sabre... Great work! :-) Scieberking (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I appreciate it.-- SabreBD  (talk)  18:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Formatting
Hi, I've cleaned up the titles of a few articles you appear to have contributed to. Please note WP:MOSDASH. Here's one of them. Thanks. Tony  (talk)  10:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Skype
Please can you have another go at your change to United Kingdom? You seem to have Skype installed, and it added some unwanted stuff to the article. Philip Trueman (talk) 09:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This is the second time. I will have a go at a re-do and then go look for a cure.-- SabreBD  (talk)  09:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me. Well done. Philip Trueman (talk) 09:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I managed to find the add-on and disable it - so it shouldn't be a problem any more. Cheers.-- SabreBD  (talk)  11:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi
I recently mentioned pet sounds on the psychedelic section on the rock music page. I just wanted to know what was wrong with? Because I personally think that the info is reliable as the beach boys did use psychedelic themes in there songs on pet sounds.

thanks for reading —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.85.232 (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of edits really belong on the article talk pages so I have copied your question and replied there at Talk:Rock music.-- SabreBD  (talk)  06:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Bobby Shafto
Hi there

I was just wondering where you got your information about Bobby Shafto? Because he (the guy in the nursery rhyme) was my husbands 8th great grandfather and I was looking up some information for our sons school

Regards Rachel Duncombe-Shafto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.18.47 (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello there and contratulations on your husband's distinguished forebears. I think all the sources I used are in the article's for Robert Shafto and Bobby Shafto's Gone to Sea, but alarmingly all the online links seem to have gone dead. I will try to have a look and find some alternatives for the article and then let you know if I come up with anything.-- SabreBD  (talk)  21:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This one might be useful: Click Here-- SabreBD  (talk)  22:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but it's not that distinguished! We just get people trying to be clever about nurdery rhymes! I just had a quick look at that file, there's one small inaccuracy I've noticed: Whitworth Hall wasn't bought exactly, more the proceeds of piracy, theft, gambling and various other skulduggery! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.18.47 (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I sympathise, as my name rhymes with Foster and then I foolishly became a Dr. That got old very quickly. I wonder if the DNB was just being cautious about the origins of the family money.-- SabreBD  (talk)  16:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Glam metal terminology
Hello, I see you deleted the "terminology" section I just added to the glam metal article, citing reliable sources issues. A quick look at the WP:IRS page reminded me that the sources are meant to be "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question". Don't you regard heavy metal expert Sam Dunn and music encyclopedia Allmusic as authors who are authoritative in relation to this subject ? They are refered to in my (deleted) addition... —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchwartzPadre (talk • contribs) 16:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, you need to give citations for the sources in the text in the style of the rest of the article, just listing the names in the text is not sufficient I am afraid. If you can find the details of the sources I am happy to help with the formatting issues. You can find more details at WP:CITE. -- SabreBD  (talk)  16:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, most of my informations comes from Wikipedia articles (on the documentary page, for example), the Allmusic website and my own deductions from the informations I gathered from these pages. Plus, I didn't have the time to add references to Allmusic but I was planning to add them as soon as possible, but you deleted the section before I could return. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchwartzPadre (talk • contribs) 17:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The best thing to do is put it all together in a sandbox before posting a final version. If you borrow information from other Wikipedia articles you need to borrow the citations as well. If there are none then I am afraid you will need to find some. I am also afraid that your own deductions count as WP:SYN or WP:OR and are bound to be reverted. Let me know if want to someone to have a look at a draft or if I can help in any other way.-- SabreBD  (talk)  17:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, I just finished referencing my "Terminology" section. Would you care to take a look at it before I save it so you might recognize it as viable ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchwartzPadre (talk • contribs) 13:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. Could you give the link so that I can have a look?-- SabreBD  (talk)  14:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom
Hi, I see that you just removed an image that I added to the above article of Churchill at Yalta because of 'sandwiching'. I would be grateful if you could explain what you mean by this. Thanks.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. The MOS discourages placing text between two images at MOS:IMAGES. They can be down the left or right or left, in the case of the UK article they are alternated and that is also my preference, but as changes are made to text the alternation is usually not changed creating some odd patterns. My edit also tried to put the alternation back into the images so that the pattern is clear, but the article is so big that doing it all at once takes a long time, so I think I may have undone your last two edits, apologies for that but you can probably redo those more easily than I can, as you actually know what you were doing. Hope that helps.-- SabreBD  (talk)  00:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I must confess that I wasn't aware of that guidance (many articles breach it). Is there any way that we could reintroduce the image that I added of Churchill at Yalta by moving the WW1 image up? I think that the Yalta image serves a number of purposes including referencing the Second World War (arguably the most important single event in the history of the nation), providing a visual bridge into the post-war era and showing a picture of Churchill, probably the most important British Prime Minister?Rangoon11 (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I take you point about the Yalta picture. I have had a quick go at seeing how it looks with all four pictures in, but I have to say it is very crowded and doesn't look very good and this is on my widest screen (on a narrow screen it will probably look a lot worse). I don't have time to resolve this tonight, but will see if I can come up with something tomorrow. Also this discussion is really more suitable for the article talkpage so I am copying this conversation there - so that other editors can comment. One solution would be to sacrifice one of the other pictures in the section, but we really need a consensus on that sort of change.-- SabreBD  (talk)  01:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks and agreed.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)