Jump to content

Talk:Robert Steadman/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between November 4, 2005 and March 8, 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Robert Steadman/Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 14:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


Robsteadman of the TES

I have a suggestion. Could someone with a neutral POV, preferably an administrator, contact Robert steadman as he invited them to do a couple of weeks ago and ask him to confirm or deny whether he is the Robsteadman of the TES? If he denies that he is Robsteadman of the TES, then of course my contentions will prove to be totally groundless and I will apologise and withdraw entirely from this article and leave it to the scurrying army of sock puppets that have made it their home.Crusading composer 00:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Please explain to me why it is relevant whether the Robsteadman who posts on TES is the Robert Steadman about whom this article is written. It still doesn't make it a worthy external link or source of information, even if it is! I've removed the link that an anon IP just added, and will continue to do so. I do like the current rewrite. UkPaolo 17:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I like the rewrite. Still needs a bit more of an intro paragraph, but its much more focused than when the RFC got started. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 01:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Not sure why it is still relevant whether the TES robsteadman is the same Robert Steadman as has been said it is hardly political campaigning.

Why does the re-write miss out various recordings that were on the article before? This seems to be a mistake. FInally, if using music for "campaigning" is an important part of Steadman's output I think some mention should be made of it even if it is within another section. It seems that CC has steamrollered in his cut down version. 86.137.227.147 07:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

And today, after a couple of weeks of calm, the page is attacked with several references to the TES again. Is it worth contacting the TES web managers to ask for their opinion? 86.137.65.24 12:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Their opinion as to what? The encyclopaedic notability of RS's contributions to TES, or his identity? BTW, if you're going to be a regular here, BT anon(s), would you please consider logging in? Alai 06:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Their opinion as to why people from their site are invading this site. Maybe the IP adddresses at specific times of vandalism? 86.137.65.24 09:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how said opinions would be material here, and I have no idea whether they'd care to offer them. The IP addresses of the recent link-inserter (like those of your own contributions, and like all anons) are right there to see in the page history. Are you suggesting that the TES people go on an identity hunt for those IPs posting to their board? If so, I can't see what that has to do with Wikipedia (much less, this article). And this terminology of "invading" and "attack" is very melodramatic, btw. Wikipedia gets a lot worse "vandalism" than this, very regularly; I don't see a lot of urgency for any special measures in this particular case. Alai 15:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


Can somebody please explain to me how on earth it matters whether the Robsteadman on the TES message board is the Robert Steadman who is the subject of this article. It prooves nothing more than "Robert Steadman uses the TES message board" which is hardly something noteworthy which merits inclusion in this article. Yes, people keep adding TES links, and these will continue to be removed by any one of a number of editors contributing to this article. I see nothing whatsoever which can be gained, either by verifying the identity of Robsteadman on TES, or those users of IP's used to provide TES links. Wikipedia suffers from far worse vandalism than the occasional insertion of semi-innappropriate links. As per Alai above, perhaos the anon-BT-IP may consider signing up for an account if they are planning on making contributions to Wikepedia? └ UkPaolo/TALK┐ 11:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Presumably the significance would be if we were trying to characterise his politics, and the RS of the TES were to add to that, or to contradict the characterisation of those here. But as there seems to be nothing notable about his politics, and as the current version of the article eschews mention of his "controversial" membership of Amnesty, etc, I can't really see how it's material, certainly not in and of itself.
Whether or not the other editors of this page are (also) TES editors also doesn't seem to me to matter. They can have whatever motivations they like for editting here, just so long as they do so within normal standards of conduct. Alai 02:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Robsteadman has been less active on the TES recently, as he has switched his attention to Wikipedia. As a result of his attempts to manipulate articles, it has been revealed that he is actually both vhjh and Robeaston. This makes much of what has been discussed on this article misleading. It also shows that I was right in saying that this article is a vanity article created by the subject. The subject has attempted to own this article and to prevent anything other negative from appearing. I suggest that this article be referreedc for deletion again.

  • It is a vanity article
  • The vote to keep it was compromised by the use of sock puppets and the subject himself was instrumental in swaying opinion. The subject himself used a smear campaign to discredit those who voted aginst it and, ironically,demanded that admin looked into their actions.Crusading composer 00:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

How do you archive?

Now that this page has got so long, and much is no longer current, is there a way to archibe the page? Or some of the entries to it? Vhjh 21:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Mmmm. I wonder what parts you'd like to archive? I don't see why any of it is no longer current.Crusading composer 23:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I despair. I was on the verge of archiving it, but held back cuz I predicted it would just cause trouble. Somehow doing anything to this article seems to cause trouble. Archiving would be a most sensible idea - in my opinion there's plenty of material on this page which is no longer being actively discussed. I'd advocated archiving all but the latest three or four sections. It's still available to view on an archive page, afterall (in fact it's really just like paginating the page), but would make it more manageable and easier to see new additions. └ UkPaolo/TALK┐ 23:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Done, and if you'd like to see some methods for archiving, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. The page was 106k, far past where you'd normally archive. As you can see, all the previous discussion is still easily accessible via the link at the top and the most recent (and still active) topic is still here for discussion. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

So when do you provide external links and when internal? Is it just whenn there isn't a wiki page? Vhjh 09:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

For cross-references to other topics, internal links are always preferred. External links for citing sources for the material at hand is useful, though, and distinctly lacking here. Our only source on Steadman would appear to be, Steadman. Alai 01:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
In which case the Evelyn Glennie site is justified? Vhjh 07:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Why? It's a generic link to her own site, which is linked to from the Glennie article in any case. How does it "source" any of the material here? I'm thinking in particular of the material previously questioned, and asserted to be from "programme notes", etc. Alai 18:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Just asking a question!! Trying to get things straight in my head! So a link to specific pages is needed? Then the EG link is justified?
I can't see why the EG external link would be justified, in any event. What's it saying, that an internal link doesn't? What would it be sourcing? The works that EG lists as commissions from Steadman don't seem to appear in the article, where numerous pieces do appear, with no reference at all, internal or external. What you should ask yourself is, if a third party were to try to write this article from scratch, what references would suffice for the task? Ideally, that verify what's on Steadman's own website, as well as referencing anything that doesn't. For instance:
  • Where do his writings on educational matters appear?
  • Who compared him to Nyman and Oldfield, and where did they do so?
  • In what form was Sredni Vashtar produced and/or published? (And likewise other works listed without either being noted.)
  • Where does his conducting work appear as a matter of public record?
If the above, and similar pieces of information, are things that are simply taken directly from the RS web page, or worse, are things the author just happens to know, that's far from ideal from a verifiability consideration. Alai 00:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Educational Issues?

What exactly does it mean - "he writes about educational issues"? As far as I know, the only place that he makes ANY contribution about educational issues is in the TES. Do we really want to get back onto that debate. As the article stands, it's practically begging for this link: http://www8.tes.co.uk/section/staffroom/staffroomsearch.aspx?search=robert+steadman&searchPath=%2Fstaffroom%2Fforums%2FOpinion%2F&quicksearch=&mode=live&x=27&y=5.

Robert Steadman's notability is borderline at best and that is because of his compositions. He's NOT a well known conductor - but I suppose that the two are linked. His work as an educator deserves no more than a passing comment. How many other music teachers have conducted THEIR schools at the proms or done a bit of parttime work at the local poly? His education beliefs are not important to this article, and, trying to cram in every facet of his life will only open up a can of worms.Crusading composer 16:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's not re-open that can of worms, or at least, no sooner than we absolutely have to. Let's give Vhjh some time to provide the requested references, and if s/he can, all is well and good. Alai 22:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh dear, Crusading composer carrying on his anti-Steadman campaign dispite so many people pointing out his position is untenable. Stranger how he only links to ONE specific board on the TES site. This continuing attack is unacceptable - Crusading composer should make it clear why he has such an issue when the facts are so clearly contrary to his position.

As a fellow music teacher I have read many articles on music education and composition by Mr. Steadman in, most recently, "Classroom Music" which is published by Rhinegold Publishing, but also in the "Clarinet and Saxophone Magazine" (published by the Clarinet & Saxophone Society of GB), "Winds" magazine (published by the British Association of Symphonic Bands and Wind Ensembles), etc. Do I need to go on?

Maybe Crusading composer really needs to have SOME knowledge on this subject beyond an internet messageboard grudge before he makes his continued grouch against the subject simply embarassing? Vhjh 21:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do you have to be so defensive and so aggressive? You continue to attack me for being anti-steadman - yet I have made many positive edits to this article. My issue has always been with the 'bigging up' of Mr Steadman - particularly the references to his politics. I'm happy for you to keep the last sentence in the introduction - as long as you accept that I will add link to the TES (not because I am anti Steadman but purely for balance and accuracy).

I'm glad that you have found some recent articles referring to Mr steadman, most of the website and, therefore, this article are way out of date. One might be forgiven for thinking that Mr Steadman peaked in the 90s. I called in to one of the two shops mentioned in steadman's website to purchase some of his music. Unfortunately the owner said that he had only ever received ONE piece of music from steadman and that was about 15 years ago. He believed that Mr Steadman had given up. I was a little disappointed, but it confirmed my opinion of Mr Steadman's website.Crusading composer 22:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Crusading composer I am afraid you are a liar. You have no knowledge of Steadman beyond disagreements with him on the TES massageboards. You have no knowledge of modern classical music - if you did you would know that most modern classical music is not "in stock' in music shops but ordered as needed, or hired in the case of larger pieces - and I have just had a look at his website - I would love to know which shops you are refering to as I cannot see any mentioned. I do not believe for one minute that you contacted any music shop. Why not contact his publisher? The British Music Information Centre? The Society for the Promotion of New Music? These would all seem relevant - rather than a clear anf blatant lie on your part. That is beneath contempt. Your anti-Steadman campaign has hit the rocks time and time again and yet you continue to abuse him. As for references to the TES messageboard - as has been pointed out time and again, these have no relevance to Steadman the composer - they are a discussion board. Your claims for their importance are overstated and non-sensical - if you linked to the Music Forum on those boards it might make a tiny bit of sense but that wouldn't support your seemingly endless vendetta would it? I know Alai will probably repriman me but you are a vandal out to settle an argumenet which is beyond Wikipedia. If, as is clear, you have no knowledge of Steadman, modern classical music, etc. why are you pretending you do? It is a simple case of a vendetta and you need to stop or be stopped. Show your hand, CC, show us that you have knowledge of the subject or shut up for good and admit you are out to try to do the subject of this article harm merely because you isagree with some of his statements on a messageboard. The time has come - put up or shut up. Vhjh 08:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
An as for having peaked and done nothing in the past few years - again you misrepresent - his 2nd Symphony was premiered 2 years ago in the Royal Concert Hall Nottingham (hardly an insignificant venue), he had a piece commissioned and premiered at teh Imperial War Museum North this year, a piece for choral society was premiered in June in Southwell Minster (not a small venue). No, CC, you are out to try to make him look stupid but are merely making yourself look stupid. So you disagree with Steadman on some political or faith issues - that is irrelevant. Stick to facts. Put up or shut up. Vhjh 08:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
VHJH, you sound hysterical. Why? Why is this so important to you? Why the drama? I must 'be stopped'. Stopped from doing what? I haven't broken any rules or code of conduct. I haven't even engaged in an edit war, not really. I have actually made quite a positive contribution to this article. You, however, are intent on making this personal. You call me a vandal, you have been warned not to do this. Disagreement is not vandalism. You now call me a liar. On Saturday 3rd December, I was in Lee On solent to collect a copy of the Fleet Review DVD for my Dad's Christmas present. Mostyn Music is next door but one to the memorabilia shop. I called in at about 10.30. I asked the shopkeeper if he had anything by Robert Steadman. He was really surprised. He believed that Steadman had stopped composing as he hadn't heard of him or about him for 15 years (now this is one of the two other publishers listed in Robert Steadman's own website where Steadman's music can be obtained from and the owner didn't know he was still composing. Fancy that! Says a lot about his notability. Don't worry, I gave him the name of the website and suggested he look it up.) The shopkeeper had only been sent one piece of music - about 15 years ago. I didn't buy it. I was genuinely interested - I have downloaded some of Mr Steadman's tunes off the internet, I can't say that I liked them, but I'm willing to give him a chance. So, am I still a liar? That's a VERY strong accusation to make. I may not be an expert in classical music but I can read a website, visit a shop and put 2 and 2 together. My claim that Mr Steadman seems to have done very little lately comes from reading his own website. The Stop Press is more than a year out of date. The biography and recordings section both end in 2000. I don't doubt that he has done other things more recently, but he is hardly the prolific composer he claims to be in his website. You assewrt that I am trying to do the subject of this article harm... can you back that up? Have I not given praise where praise is due, have I not conceded many points and compromised? Yes, I have. Trying to give a balanced view oif the subject is NOT doing him harm. I have hardly been very active in 'vandalising' the article or in insulting the subject. The only time I get involved is when you insist on putting in silly extras. Can you not see that the 'educational issues' sentence is asking for a link to the TES? That's where the subject writes most. You have added that sentence but have provided no explanation of what it means or provided any evidence. I see little point in engaging in dialogue with you when you refuse to see anybody's point but your own and while you are so aggressive and offensive. From now on I'll just change what I think is irrelevant.Crusading composer 20:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
.Crusading composer you have no GENUINE interest beyond a grudge on the TES boards. I have now looked into this - to investigate why you are so interested. It seems other posters believe YOU to be a poster on there called grouch who was warned about behaviour and possibly briefly banned because of abuse and trolling of Robert Steadman. Mostyn Music is NOT mentioned on Robert Steadman's website - that is a lie - but Con Moto Publications is - I do wish you would get your facts straight. There is, also, a difference betweena shop and a publisher. Your previous post really makes this seem very likely - you have no knowledge or interest in modern clasical music, you have a very limite knowledge of music education and have not read any of the many articles written by Robert Steadman, you refer to "educational issues" when the artiucle refers to "music educations" and you keep refering to this - can you not read and understaqnd the difference? And your knowledge of Steadman does not exist beyond the TES boards and his own website. You are a fraudulent poster, pretending to be genuine who is out to smear the subject of this article. Pitiful behavious - and exactly why the "DELETE" request was rejected - you know nothing about Steadman but have been expose as A "TROLL" on one other website already. I really think such a campaign is contrary to the rules of WIkipedia and you should be banned from further editing. I do hope that an admin takes such an action - others have already agreed with my position but not gone as far as banning on the basis that you will get bored. Clearly your stalking and mental condition are more extreme than had been expected. Go away, learn about modern classical music and music educationj and you will see where Steadman fits in. Stop displaying your lack of knowledge and shouting about your internet disagreement - you are attempting to wreck a valid artiucle on WIkipedia because of a personal feud. Vhjh 22:46, 5 December 2005

(UTC)

I'm not sure what the point is in engaging in dialogue with you vhjh.

You keep asking admins to look into my conduct. Get this, I am doing nothing wrong.

  • It doesn't matter whether I am from the TES website or not - we are NOT on the TES website.
  • I'm NOT going to get banned. Only one person apart from you has even mentioned it and, as far as I'm concerned, that person was in the wrong and made an error. Their 'opinion' is just that - an opinion.
  • It doesn't matter if I do not know much about classical music. So what? Anybody is free to edit as long as they are acting in good faith and what they edit is factually correct.

If an administrator was to look into this spat they'd find that it is your conduct that is unacceptable.

  • You have called me a liar on several occasions, you have made very offensive personal attacks on me - including poking fun at my mental health.
  • You have accused me of being a troll and claiming that I have been banned from another site. What is your evidence for this? I'd like to see you find some (since I haven't been).
  • You accuse me of engaging in a campaign against Mr Steadman, but, if anyone is engaging in a smear campaign it's not me smearing the subject but you smearing me. I have made many more positive contributions to this article than negative ones. The few negative comments I have made about the subject have been on the discussion page. Just because you disagree with them, doesn't make my comments offensive. The 'delete' request was not made by me.
  • You repeat your 'vandal' claims even though you have been asked not to call me that. You repeatedly call for me to be banned and attempt to drive me away.

Each and every one of these actions is a behaviour listed by Wikipedia as unacceptable. I’m not going to stoop to your level by responding in kind. As far as my remark about the publisher... ConMoto and Mostyn Music are one and the same aren't they, or am I being obtuse?Crusading composer 22:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Also interesting that :.Crusading composer's rfecent vandalism is the removal of a sentence INSERTED BY Crusading composer on the basis there he can't find proof.... what is going on? Add something to be seen as positive? Remove it in order to diss the subject and other editors? Yep, that'll be about it. PLEASE COULD AN ADMIN LOOK INTO :.Crusading composer AND HIS CONTINUED VANDALISM OF THIS PAGE? Vhjh 23:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC
Vhjh, when I originally added that statement, I added a caveat in the discussion page that I was relying on my memory and that I could no longer find the link. I DID ask that someone else might look for it. Did you bother? It has been a month or so and the evidence has not been found, so I removed the statement. Your links above, whilst quite informative, do NOT actually provide any evidence for the statement I removed. The statement should be deleted or have a note added again that evidence is needed.Crusading composer 22:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

SO why add it if you felt it was untrue? Was it to cause trouble when you decided you wanted to remove it and hope to bring down a few other points to?213.249.155.231 17:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

If you read the talk page I gave my reasons for including it and also for removing it. I would not have included it if it wasn't true. I asked if anyone could find the evidence - which is/was out there, but neither I nor anyone else could. Believe me, if you can restrict a search to US articles/Tsunami benefits the evidence is there. I wasn't actually looking for it though, it was a link from a link sort of thing: that's why I can't find it. I have NO problems in giving Mr Steadman praise when it is due and this article contains a few positive edits made by me. Funnily enough, no one takes umbrage when I make positive edits (my lack of expertise doesn't matter) but jump all over me when I edit something in a way that is 'seen' as negative even when it isn't.Crusading composer 19:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
His link [1] seems pretty supportive of it to me. And yes he did bother, so that seems a daft question. What seems strange is that you added the statement, then made a fuss about it's removal, and yet didn't bother to find a source yourself. └ UkPaolo/TALK┐ 22:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually it doesn't. Yes, Mr Steadman does provide free downloads but there is no evidence of them being performed internationally. For your information, I made that contribution in good faith. Once all the initial hoihah died down, there was a spirit of cooperation - it didn't last due to the aggressive and offensive attitudes of some editors. For your information, I have spent some time looking for the link - unsuccessfully. I hardly made a fuss about it. I removed it - correctly.

As far as the long list of links below, what do they actually prove. Mr Steadman is a composer. He runs workshops. He has written a few pieces of music - some have been performed to large audiences. He runs the odd workshop and he is very keen on writing letters to the local newspapers. He is also Robsteadman of the TES, apparently!Crusading composer 23:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

None of the links suggest he writes to a local newspaper - that is untrue. The links, plus his own website, show he has written mroe than a "few" pieces of music - seems to be quite a lot and, from what it seems, most are commissions not just pieces he decides to write - how many comkposers are so regularly commissioned? The links about workshops show that he not only runs them but these are newsworthy - not that many music workshops get reported on - why might that be? Perhaps because he is considered a newsworthy musician perhaps? And what relevance is it whether he is or isn;t robsteadman of the TES - except it shows where !Crusading composer's grudge started. !Crusading composer admiots to knowing virtually nothing about this subject or the area in which he works and yet he continues to edit a page. Does nobody else find that a little odd? 213.249.155.231 17:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

This is the funniest yet! For goodness sake, any basic search for Mr Steadman will turn up dozens of examples of him writing to local and national newspapers abou virtully any topic. I'd be surprised if there is something that he has thought about that he hasn't mailed off and marked as 'concerned of Matlock'.
  • So we DO now agree that Mr Steadman and 'robsteadman' ARE the same person?
  • I'd just like to point out 213etc that your style of writing, your spelling and typing errors are remarkably similiar to both vhjh and robsteadman of the TES (yes, I am somewhat familiar with the TES boards - as are you and vhjh and robsteadman). It's bizarre really. Did you go to the same school?Crusading composer 19:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I assume you read the links provided and cross-referenced the titles he's made available for download with those performed outside of his native country? If not, you might want to check again. Essentially, those links are references for the source material of the article as I noted below -- the do not "prove" anything, they are citations for the facts we list in the article. Some are more noteworthy than others -- message boards and personal blogs are not generally considered good sources and as such, TES was not listed as a reference. Everyone involved needs to stop with the personal attacks, period. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems very odd that someone who claims no personal knowledge of the subject, has no professional knowledge of him and has no, or at best, a limited knowledge of the area in which the subject works is so keen on changing the page. Maybe vandalism is too harsh a word for !Crusading composer's changes but it seems strange that most (if not all) his changes have a negative slant, he was behind the failed attempt to have teh article deleted and he is clearly linked to the TES boards where it seems he has had a grudge against the subject of this article. Everyone needs to calm down, true. But I wonder whether !Crusading composer is really a useful editor on a subject that he clearly knows nothing beyond a personal disagreement about politics, religion and unions. Editing a page, almost entirely negatively, with no real knowledge of teh subject - it's only one step from vandalism, isn't it? 213.249.155.231 17:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. Is it? I have had a significant input into the present revision of this article. Even if I do say so myself, I have made edits that have made it clearer to read and actually more informative. Indeed, I'd like to know just how many 'negative' edits I have made. I have actually confined most of my devate on this article to the talk page. I know you WANT to believe that I am waging a grudge fuelled anti steadman campaign, but the edit history doesn't bear that out, does it? I do not need to calm down - I,m not the one getting hsterical and over dramatic. I would, however, appreciate an apology from 'both' you and vhjh. I think that I deserve one.Crusading composer 19:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)



First -- take a few deep breaths -- ok, now, please do not refer to a content dispute as vandalism, we have plenty of real vandals abusing articles. It appears that the assertation was removed from the article because it could not be sourced -- its important for statements to be verifiable -- in fact, the edit summary says just that. If you have a source that shows Mr. Steadman offering works for a charitable donation and that these pieces have been featured internationally, please provide it and add it to a References section of the article. You'll note that {{fact}} has been added a number of places in the article -- these are the types of statements that need to have a reference cited, or they need to be removed. I know there has been a lot of contention surrounding this article in the past, but it appears that Crusading composer's edit was made in good faith. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Crusading composer on this one... as far as I'm concerned statements need to be verifiable. The statement that songs have been offered for download needs a source, and as yet none has been provided. I think it's right that the statement therefore be removed until such a source can be found. I reverted Vhjh accordingly. └ UkPaolo/TALK┐ 16:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure all of the following is useful but I think a lot of it answers a number of questions that have been raised. This information plus the Steadman homepage seem to agree on much of this.

A few points though - it was Crusading Composer who added about pieces given away being performed internationally and in an earlier discussion refers to having found evidence of this - was this a lie? If he found the evidence once why not again? What purpose would there be to say you have evidence and then to say no evidence exists? I wonder!

Here are a number of links that fill in a number of gaps:

Music given away in return for a charitable donation:


Stylistic comparison with other composers:

“Judging by the audience reaction, Steadman has certainly supplied an accessible work in his Magnificat and the choir, too, enjoyed performing it. It was unashamedly showy: a heady mixture of Carl Orff and Andrew Lloyd Webber, with a touch of Michael Nyman thrown in for good measure”

He often writes articles on music education for CLASSROM MUSIC:

Recent articles have been about “starters”, “copyright”, “A-level Schemes of Work”, etc.

BRITISH MUSIC INFORMATION CENTRE list of contemporary British composers:

Evelyn Glennie link:

Refers to the premiere of a ‘cello concerto:

Steadman’s role in the Memorial Service for the victims of the Dunblane tragedy is mentioned in DUNBLANE: NEVER FORGET by Mick North (Mainstream Publishing, ISBN 1840183004)

References to opera with Richard Adams, writing for Evelyn Glennie, writing for Royal Philharmonic Orchestra plus two pieces written for the Millennium Done (surely they should be in the article somewhere?):

There are many references to a music education website run by Steadman (sadly down at the moment):

LA MATANZA:


BBC Local News article about Anne Frank piece:


DELTA IV: 'A fine piece, and one which may steal the show.'- Brass Bulletin. SONATA IN ONE MOVEMENT: set for the Tuba Class in the 1991 Geneva International Competition for Musical Performers.

Basingstoke links:

Music for Serpent:


Recent commission from IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM NORTH:


Published views about Last Night of the Proms:

And a reply:

Refers to premieres of a Cello Concerto – a major work not mentioned in te article at present:

Reference to workshops:

Another recent premiere and commission:

CD recording of THE RAINS ARE COMING:

Reference to choral pieces for schools:

Premiere of GLORIA:

““Glorious music, gloriously sung”.

Involvement with BASBWE and Wind Bands:

List of classical composers:

Review of CANTO VIRGINEM premiere:

Matlock Live Festival:

Interesting reference to tuba playing skills in 1986:

Performance of orchestral work in Bournemouth:

Hope this helps.

Vhjh 20:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Holy links batman! No really, that's perfect -- I think you've sourced quite a bit of the content in the article in one fell swoop. I've readded the statement removed earlier and started the references section; feel free to add other references as appropriate. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 21:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
yeh, I totally agree, nice work Vhjh. That certainly backs up a number of statements. └ UkPaolo/TALK┐ 22:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The edit made by 213 on 7.12.05 is much better.Crusading composer 20:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Was he involved in the big Tsuanmi Relief concert in Cardiff earlier this year: http://www.trcymru.org/support_singers.html

And he's a signatory to the Music Manifesto which is interesting.... http://www.musicmanifesto.co.uk/signatories/signatory.cfm?&id=96

Here's a reference to the ASHTEAD PSALMS: http://parish.ashtead.org/xmas99/50.htm

And some involvement with something (not quite sure what) at the Millennium Dome: http://www.collegest.org.uk/events/EVArchive%20files/2000/Home.htm

And this shows one choir that has two pieces in their repertoire: http://ashteadsingers.org.uk/repertoire.html


Vhjh 22:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Category confusion

Why is this page in the CATEGORY of pages lacking facts? It seems it is now overflowing with references, citations and links! 213.249.155.231 18:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The category was actually removed yesterday after sources were added; most likely you saw a cached version of that category page. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It's still on the TALK PAGE tho! 213.249.155.231 18:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops - mea culpa. I used the template earlier in the disucussion; i've nowiki'd it. Thanks for pointing that out. And please, stop with the personal attacks. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


Compositions

Just one more suggestion. Can someone remove the word 'recent' and replace it with the date of the performance. It sounds odd.Crusading composer 20:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure about odd sounding but, as it is recent, I have assumed it means this year and have made the alteration. Vhjh 21:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


Thank you. By odd I meant out of place.Crusading composer 21:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


New Section

Regarding all these sources and evidence on this talk page - Do we need to start a new section and resequence it so that it appears at the top and doesn't get archived? It might make it easier to acess.Crusading composer 00:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow why it shouldn't (eventually) be archived (though only if inactive at the time), or why it should be out-of-order on this talk page -- or what the one has to do with the other. BTW, if some portion of a talk page is archived in error, you're free to restore it to the page proper (though please don't do so merely to "unearth" an old discussion, if it'd simply be less painful to re-raise the same point). Or simply add a link to the appropriate section of archive: after all, they're not dead, just shuffled off a little to the side.
Shouldn't more of these sources be in the article itself, though? That's the point of WP:CITE; not just to have them on talk pages to settle arguments, but to use them to enhance the verifiability of the article for future readers and editors, too. Alai 01:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Exactly, any relevant sources need to be cited in a References section of the article... └ UkPaolo/TALK┐ 11:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

To coin a phrase...

"It is just that bit too long, however, and would benefit from some serious trimming." The list (of lists) of pieces of music is getting rather long. Unless each and every one of these is notable unto itself, wouldn't some selectivity here be useful, with an external link to the rest? Alai 05:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely... └ UkPaolo/TALK┐ 08:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe instead of lists they need to be contained more in prose. I was just following the template set up by CC. Will give it a go in next few days. Certainly all major works/works with interesting "histories" and recorde works need a mention, don't they? Will see what I can do. Vhjh 14:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It's also why I started providing the external links I did. Vhjh 14:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, on both counts. Alai 16:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Surely you mean "to use a phrase" as the phrase has already been coined. 86.136.161.163 16:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you may instead be looking for this page, or perhaps this one. Alai 21:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there no page about misuse of phrases then? 86.136.161.163 08:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
To (essentially redundantly) expand on my previous comment: that is the idiomatic meaning of the phrase; and, you're wildly off-topic, and given your other contributions, one is tempted to suspect are so for purely trolling purposes. Alai 17:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


Can you tell me why adding a link from an article about Ropbert Steadman to the Wiki user page of Robert Steadman is an invasion of privacy?Crusading composer 00:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be about him as a composer - why do you think his dealings on Wikipedia are relevant? Why have you only added this when he's banned and can't do anything about it? SOPHIA 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with SOPHIA that his talk page is completely irrelevant to an article about him as a composer. Also, since you know that he has been blocked for sockpuppetry (and have mentioned that above on this page), it doesn't seem in the best of taste to link to a page which discusses this block. AnnH ♫ 00:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly not clear to me he's notable as a wikipedian, so while I don't think it's an invasion of privacy, it doesn't seem very "N&V". If you want to flag the connection to editors, the standard means are {{Notable_Wikipedian}} and Category:Wikipedian autobiography, but those are for meta-content, not the article space. (And talking of notability: I'm not sure recent revelations really change things on that; several genuinely uninvolved editors did seem to think he had some degree of notability as a composer.) Alai 01:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Steadman/Archive_2&oldid=1074599065"