User talk:Sabrebd/Autoarchive 1

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

Barnstar

All Around Amazing Barnstar
Sabrebd is an impressive editor, and this statement WP:FACT doesn't even need a WP:RS :-) Scieberking (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks Scieberking. I really appreciate it.--SabreBD (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

SitEMA

Very nice work using good references, I've skimmed through it and soon I'll sit back and enjoy a good read at leisure.

A minor suggestion (feel free to ignore it), in the spirit of "citing sources"—for the maps you create, it would be good to include citations in the "source" section for both content (eg, source of pit- place names in your article map) and cartographic source ... that distinguishes it from the "original research/synthesis" maps that haunt wikipedia and also for when articles come up for review (where someone might want to be sure that it's copyright-free). For example, for this map I went so far as to give page numbers with the isbn, along with the cartographic origin.

Again, very nice work. Best Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Funnily enough I was just thinking about that problem. When I was working in the sandbox I considered giving the source in the heading, but this was rather cumbersome. I thinking giving the details in the commons details box is probably the best answer, so I will try to get back to that when I have recovered from the effort of writing the article. Good work on the maps by the way, they are some of the best on Wikipedia and rather leave my standing. I also expect there are some typos in there, as it becomes difficult to see them in an article of this size after a while, so perhaps you will spot a few as you read through. All the best.--SabreBD (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Enjoyed reading it. Fixed a few typos, removed a duplicated sentence, etc. Unsure in a few places, so left as-is for your decision:

  • All of which were rebuffed, losing the region of Kyle in south-west modern Scotland to Northumbria, and the last of which may have forced the king Dumnagual III to submit to his neighbours. the 9th century.[15]
    • the 9th century.[15] ... dangling, and looks like part of an otherwise lost sentence; I wasn't sure what to do with it.
  • This would have meant that there were a relatively small proportion of available workers to mouths to feed and may have made it difficult to produce a surplus that would allow demographic growth and more complex societies to develop.[48]
    • to over-hyphenate, it means " ... a small proportion of available workers-to-mouths-to-feed ... ", where the hyphenation constructs the variable; but without the hyphenation it might come across as confusing, especially if English is not the primary language of the reader. Reword for clarity?
  • Forfireshire
    • I presume you meant [[Angus|Forfarshire]]?

You note climate and environment degradation in a couple of places, including the 2nd paragraph of the lede, and later in "Physical geography" ... have a look at the "source" for this map ... if you can get to Issar's work, page 53 supports your statements. I've gone through this and a number of other sources (eg, see this map and its sources) in preparation for some upcoming article work.

And thanks for the kind words on the maps ... they're not really my interest, but an accurate one is indeed worth more than 1,000 words, and they can be invaluable when you try to picture things in the mind, something that's hard to do with words alone. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for this and the typo fixing. I will take a look at these points later and try to sort out the outstanding issues. Its very useful to have someone take a look with fresh eyes and it looks like most of these outstanding issues are in the "it made perfect sense at the time" category that a lot of cutting and pasting tends to create. On the issue of climate change I think this probably needs a bit of firming up so I till try to get through to the sources. I took a version of this section over to Economic history of Scotland and it did strike me that this also needs following through there and in the other (chronologically) adjoining articles. Is the article you are working on one dealing with the issue in a long chronological context? Sounds interesting. Thanks again, as you will I am sure appreciate, it makes a nice change to be engaged in some positive discussion, rather than just reverting vandalism and the bizzare.--SabreBD (talk) 09:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in getting back, real life has its distractions. It was my pleasure, and it reduced my list of "things we need to have done yesterday". I also appreciate the value of fresh eyes ... after I've looked at something too many times I tend to read it again without reading it at all. Climate/environment are relevant (but often unmentioned) factors to several historical topics of interest, but I not my focus per se. And yes, I do watch a page after I've edited it, but a talkback template is ok, too. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

not a state

In reference to your edit to the middle ages template, what did you mean by Scotland not being a state in this period? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Deacon. No I meant its not a state now, which I took to be the meaning of "Medieval histories of current states". I could have misunderstood this as the template is a bit confusing, but it seems to be it belongs to the same category as the Kingdom of England, which also ceased in 1707, as a result of the Act of Union.--SabreBD (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that qualification post-dates the article's inclusion in the template. I adjusted this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense now, but the problem remains that this only links to one bit of Scotland in the middle ages. A better option might be to go to the disam page Scotland in the Middle Ages. Ultimately I think that that page should become a summary of the three medieval articles, but there is a bit of work to do before on Scotland in the High Middle Ages before that can be achieved. Sorry I am on a poor connection at the moment, so real time discussion is a bit hard at the moment and I might not keep up with rapid changes.--SabreBD (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
In the absence of that we'd go for the high one, it being central. The High Medieval article does indeed need updated and improved for 2010 wiki tastes (and for subsequent work which problematizes some of it), and the article needs to be written better; but most of the frivolous cns on it are for fairly obvious matters included in adjacent citations which would take as much time to cite as tag. It was criticized the year it passed for having too many citations! Feel free to "update" it as you please. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
My tagging was not an attack on the article or at all frivolous. Its a great piece of work and the model I used for the re-creation/expansion of the other medieval articles. I am not surprised that it was criticised for "too may citations" at the time, as things have changed a lot in what is expected on Wikipedia and it was my assumption that one of the major problems was later additions. However, I was really looking for help, rather than trying to bid for a job. If you can see which bits are covered by nearby citations it would really help if you could use them to fill in the gaps, as they are not obvious to me and it will take me a lot more work as I am far less familiar with those sources.--SabreBD (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The fad for reference spam is a by-product of the search by certain Wikipedians to secure illusory security against inaccuracy. It provides a measurable but superficial way for a bunch of guys who don't have a clue to avoid taking responsibility for content. I'm not naturally sympathetic to providing references without the content being problematized first. If the cn tags seek to waste someone else's time, mustn't they be justified? From what I can see, many of the tags placed are also placed on sentences simply summarizing the paragraph's content (the cn is on the il-idrisi assertion is frivolous as the quote is cited in the same para). At some point I can look over it and see what actually needs cited. I'd be more interested though in rewriting the important bits from scratch. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
If you are going to rewrite some sections then that will be a much better solution than just looking for references to support points already made. With that in mind I am going to revert the cn tags, but perhaps you could indicate which sections you have in mind on the talkpage to prevent overlap of effort. Thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The origins, national identity and political narrative to incorporate recent work by Woolf and Broun, the law section to incorporate Alice Taylor. I had been waiting for the Oram book to come out, but it keeps getting delayed. My main problem with the article is its excessive focus on the monarchy and on the poor quality of some of the sub-articles, but it is a very difficult article to handle because it sprawls across an area of great institutional and, to lesser extent, cultural change, the century after the death of David. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
PS. I have left a note on the talk page of the EMA article regarding the Fraser book. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I can definitely see the problems. While working on the early middle ages stuff it did strike me that it could have logically run on later (900 is quite an early end by the standards of watersheds elsewhere), but perhaps the "Davidian revolution" of c. 1124+ as a start is making the High Middle Ages a bit short. It might be something to think about for discussion if it would make the business any easier.--SabreBD (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I take it as kindly intentioned that you reverted my edit on my user page, but it is really up to me for what I take credit, so please do not change that for me. If you check my archives and edit history you will find that I am not much given to melodramatic gestures and that is not what is going on here. Simply put, the recent expansion produced summaries of a number of articles, which were much better sourced than the originals and frankly a lot more balanced, yet has been subjected to only negative comments. I am familiar with the process of critical review and there is a right way to do it. In my opinion this wasn't it. I would suggest you wait a couple of weeks and then look at your edits to the article, summaries and comments on the article talkpage and here and see how that might look to another editor. Some editors might respond with tit for tat tagging or start dragging out policies. That is not my style. I have formed the opinion that it is not possible to proceed when a regular editor in an area cannot be co-operated with and I reserve the right to walk away at that point. Perhaps you feel this is no loss to the area. I don't bear any hard feelings and wish you all the best in editing.--SabreBD (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Seems a bit melodramatic to me, but fair enough ... edit as you please. As I've said multiple times, your work is good. Are you wanting an epic poem celebrating it or something? You were doing a good job, and there was genuine but non major problems with some of your additions. You seem to be throwing a tantrum because of some tagging, even though you yourself are very fond of it, ... I don't really understand honestly. You have my respect and good will if you feel better later. That's all I'll say. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Frustrating as it is to have one's actions misrepresented, lets just leave it there and move on.--SabreBD (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Rock music

Good luck with the GA submission - you've been doing a grand job! Let me know if there's anything you think I can help with. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it. It will be while before it gets reviewed I am sure, but if you get time before then to cast your eyes over the article and see anything that might need fixing do let me know. My main concern is length, but its not easy to get around that. Also I should say good job on explaining the articles rationale on the talkpage. I totally agree, but its not always helpful to wade in when a valid debate is going on. I obviously would if there were concrete proposals that needed comment. All the best.--SabreBD (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

AFD Notification of Reception of country music

Hi, is it possible to get your input on this matter? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_December_15#Reception_of_country_music. Thanks, Seniortrend (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure I will take a look and see if I can add anything to the debate.--SabreBD (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Glam Metal clothing : cowboy boots

Adding cowboy boots to glam metal's typical clothing is a "good faith" edit ? Come on. You saw the Mötley, Poison or GNR music videos and certainly some live footage from the late 1980s. They were not wearing slippers... I understand your preference for heavy referencing and I share your point of view to some extent, but what do you want me to do ? Referencing by using Youtube links ?

SchwartzPadre (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Good faith edits is a complement. You need to find a written reliable source. Remember the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. On that point you could look again at the sources for the missing citations in the definitions section. I was hoping to put this article in for good article status, but with the gaps that stand at the moment I am pretty sure it would fail.--SabreBD (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Blues#Name discussion (2)

A discussion is taking place on the most appropriate and helpful name for the article on the musical form the blues. It is currently named Blues. It was moved to The blues, then moved back to blues. A current suggestion is blues music. Wider consensus is welcomed. SilkTork *YES! 13:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. I will take a look.--SabreBD (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Rock music

I just wanted to say thank you for taking our free content goal and our non-free content criteria seriously with this article. It's fantastic to know that we have someone committed to the goals of the project working hard on such an important article. As for your last question, I'm afraid I don't know for certain, but that certainly sounds right. Other than California, I don't think we'd have to be concerned about state law (though, in the years I have been working with free and non-free media on Wikipedia, the question has never come up with me before). J Milburn (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and for all the help with this project. I think I will try to upload a track that fits this window of opportunity. If it is challenged, I guess we will have our answer. If not it does open up possibilities on some articles. I have hopes to be able to set a high standard on this one so that it will provide a model for other articles and in the process make them more compliant.--SabreBD (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Butterfield All These Blues.ogg

If it's public domain, don't worry about it being a "short sample"- upload the whole damn thing in as high a quality as you can manage! J Milburn (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I was in two minds about that and wondering if it was better to have a focused sample, but presumably most readers are able to zoom ahead or stop it if they want to. I will upload the full version as soon as I get chance to do so.--SabreBD (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Empress of Soul

Hello there,

I am the 2nd person to remove your reference to MJB as the Empress of Soul. This is the first time I have edited a wiki page.

You may of course put the reference back in, but please let me state why this has been removed.

Firstly let me state MJB and Gladys are my 2 all time favorite singers of all time!

From what I can see the only reference to this title for MJB was a Billborad article, and I believe they were referring to Ryan Seacrest calling her that on American Idol, which I believe may have been a mistake? Miss Knight has also been a guest on Idol, so I doubt they would want to put the two against each other like that.

Also, the idea of this page on wiki is to use 'known' titles, which I believe this is not.

Mary is referred to as "The Queen of Hip Hop Soul: Miss Mary j Blige"...whereas Gladys is referred to as "The Empress of Soul: Miss Gladys Knight".

Lastly, MJB has enormous respect for artists such as Gladys and Aretha, and believe she would think people using their well known titles as hers as being disrespectful to them.

I hope you will agree with my reasoning and leave the post removed.

My thanks in advance...

If you wish to discuss further please email me...

Cheers...Cole cole_hayes@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole Hayes (talk • contribs) 12:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Its not my reference and it is not appropriate to discuss content like this on user talk pages. Please take your arguments to the article talkpage. If this is your first edit to Wikipedia you may want to find something less controversial to do to give yourself time to get used to the guidelines.--SabreBD (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, sorry SabreBD as I am new. Are you saying that I don't have a right to air my opinions until I am an expert in Wiki rules? From some reading, this is not expected of a new editor. And I do not believe your behavior is expected of an experienced editor. Cheers...ColeCole Hayes (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously not. Please do not accuse me of bad behaviour, but assume good faith.--SabreBD (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked from Editing

I have attempted numerous times to respond to an editor User:Rodhullandemu point number 4 on the the discussion page of Honorific Nicknames in Popular Music. But none of my edits show. Have I been blocked from editing? Comprendo (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you are able to post here, quite clearly you are not blocked from editing as it is not technically possible to block editors from specific pages. Meanwhile, I have responded to your comments, which are visible on the above page. Rodhullandemu 22:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

kesha

pls read the new items on crunkcore talk page. the email makes it dubious again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.24.50 (talk) 08:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The Genres are wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chargers26 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Rock Music

Hello Sabrebd, I offered a GA review for the rock music article but there hasn't been much action on it over the past few days. Since you nominated this article and have put so much hard work into it, would you be interested in partnering with me to address some of the issues I identified in the review? If so, how much time would you like to work on it? -- Lemurbaby 14:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lemurbaby. Sorry, I waited so long for the review that I stopped checking. It was always my plan to carry out the necessary work. I am engaged in a few other projects but I will move this to the top of my priority list until it is done. I have only had a quick look so far at you comments, but it all looks reasonable to me so far and only one issue may take a bit of work and consensus creation. I will comment on the review page. Thanks for taking this on and for the suggestions to date.--SabreBD (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I have started work on a new lead and characteristics section on one of my sandboxes here. I stress this is very rough at the moment, but perhaps you could take a look and see if you think this is on the lines you were thinking of and whether you can suggest anything else that needs inclusion. I will post a link on the article talkpage when things are a bit more developed in the hope of getting consensus. Thanks. --SabreBD (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
That's just the kind of thing I had in mind. Great work. My watchlist hasn't been working well recently, so when you've completed the lead and characteristics section would you please ping me on my talk page? Thanks in advance. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Will do.--SabreBD (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Zep

Yeah, we don't need a lot of band examples in regards to artists influence. A few major ones like Sabbath or Queen might be worth mentioning, particularly if we quote one of the members, but it's best to refrain from any sort long list. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. If you want to cut it down that is fine by me. I will look for looks for some better refs on genres that they influenced and get back to this as soon as I can. Good work on the recent editing by the way. A lot of edits that I was thinking of doing to irrelevant or over complex statements.--SabreBD (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The Wall book actually covers all the items discussed in the 2000s section up to and including the statement that Page and Jones tried to move on without Plant but ultimately decided against it, so I can probably make it even more concise. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
That would be great, as it is now the section that is clearly most in need of pruning.--SabreBD (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I promise to get into some hardcore sourcing of the page this weekend. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That's great. I am a bit caught up with doing stuff for the rock music review, so I may not be able to do as much for Zep this weekend as I hoped.--SabreBD (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of Zep's metalness that still draws comments on the heavy metal music talk page on occasion, just thought I'd share the Allmusic entry on heavy metal with you just for fun. That pretty much sums up how equally important Zep and Sabbath were in the creation of the genre. From a completely OR subjective perspective, I think the reason the whole "Zep is not metal" mantra has emerged in the last decade (and it has been the last decade--well into the early 2000s I remember no one batting an eye if you said Led Zeppelin was one of the early, if the not the first, heavy metal band) has to do with the critical reappraisal of Black Sabbath that's been going on. While Sabbath certainly deserves the long-due respect, it seems to me that the retrospective praise placed on the band has also sidelined the importance of other early metal bands--the whole idea of Sabbath inventing metal from whole cloth, which isn't true in the slightest. It's interesting to note that this phenomenon is largely reserved to the metal community; any broad history of rock refers to Zep as a metal band. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head. There has been a lot of historical re-writing in the last decade to try and make the facts fit with modern circumstances. I was around in the 70s and a lot of what is now classed as hard rock was simply heavy metal back then. The movement of Led Zep is just the most obvious part of this process. No doubt Sabbath have been the most significant influence on a lot of modern HM bands who look back to that era, but the idea that Sabbath abandoned all the blues influences is simply false. I guess lots of people wish they had different parents when they were young, but the truth is you can't choose them.--SabreBD (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
It also ignores the fact that there are lots of bluesly influences present throughout metal's history (Most metal bands use pentatonic scales, and I was surprised by how much NWOBHM is amped-up boogie riffs when I began delving into it a few years back) and that there are strands of metal that Sabbath didn't particularly influence; ie. glam metal. All those bands wanted to be Zep and Van Halen. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Kiss

You're trying to say that Vinnie Vincent is not known as both "The Ankh Warrior" and "The Wiz?" I'm not trying to vandalize the page, I listed him as both of them. I ain't going to argue with you buddy, you do whatever you want because you'll just keep changing it anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectricOutlaw (talk • contribs) 09:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

What you have to do is simple. Go argue your case on the talkpage and get consensus. Also, it would really help if you signed your posts with four tildes like this(~~~~).--SabreBD (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The Music Barnstar
Thank you so much for all your effort to improve the Rock music article. I know how time-consuming the work you're doing is. It's not going unnoticed, and it will benefit countless millions of visitors to the article over the years to come. Thank you, thank you. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Forum?

Encase you didn't notice I was replying to the IP above who was clearly trying to be confrontational. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if I reverted what was intended as a genuine contribution, but I did so because it didn't read like a reply, more like a personal comment. If you use terms like "idiots", and "bollocks" and phrases in capital letters, it does tend to give the impression that you are not engaging in a considered editing debate. Even if you consider previous editor's comments to be provocative, it is best not to be provoked and be more rational than they are. Perhaps you could repost it without those elements and it will probably help the debate rather more.--SabreBD (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

removed link The Country Startpage

Would you please explain why you removed the link to The Country Startpage. I'm new with wiki, but I tried to "walk the line" with starting a discussion abot the link, but I received no response (maybe because I didn't start a talk page of my own at that time) I really think www.countrystartpage.com is an important country music page because we try to link to every country music site on the internet in an easy to search directory.Cspwolf (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted your change to country music because it contained an edit to the infobox which looked like a test edit, disrupting the information there. If you are attempting a serious edit it is a good idea not to do anything else that might suggest the edit is problematic to regular editors checking for such things. I also sometimes revert very large numbers of such edits, so if you ever need to ask sometimes about one of their edits it might be a good idea to make the article clear or give a link to the "diff" like [[1]]. I am in a bit of a rush, so I haven't had much time to look at your website, but you may want to check out the guidelines for external links at WP:EL and see if you think you avoid the issues on what not to link. Sorry for the quick note, but let me know if you need to know anything else and I will try to reply when I can. Hope that helps.--SabreBD (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand everything you described (I'm Dutch so English isn't my native language) but I think my site doesn't conflict the guidlines for external links. Maybe you can take a look at my site when you have some more time and add it when you think it might be a valuable addition to the external links. Of course I think it is ;-) Cspwolf (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
OK I will take a look and let you have my opinion, but it will just be my opinion and others may disagree.--SabreBD (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Did you take a look already, or am I little impatient?Cspwolf (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I added The Country Startpage because there doen's seem to be anyone who's against itCspwolf (talk) 10:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I have been a bit distracted by real life recently. I don't see a problem myself, so I think you should just add it. If someone objects then you can argue your case, but its not an obvious spam.--SabreBD (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

Psychedelic rock development in the USA

Hello, I have just noticed that you moved the beach boys to the psychedelic pop page even though Turn On Your Mind: Four Decades of Great psychedelic rock book and J. DeRogatis Milk it!: collected musings on the alternative music explosion of the 90s classify them as psychedelic rock. Turn On Your Mind and Milk it! say "the first psychedelic rock masterpieces (Revolver by the Beatles, Petsounds by the Beach Boys and The Psychedelic Sounds of the 13th Floor Elevators" and "Pet Sounds, Revolver and The Piper at the Gates of Dawn, relics the first era of psychedelic rock and shining testaments to what can be accomplished in the recording studio when folks are fueled on the potent of drug of rampant imagination.". May we compromise to have the beach boys on both psychedelic pages due to what the two sources say? thanks.

SgtPetsounds (talk) 22:13, 06 March 2011 (UTC)

I moved the Beach Boys reference, and some text that had become associated with it, as a result of editing the Psychedelic music article, where the fact that they turned up on both was pointed up in the summaries. I would suggest that the Beach boys were more pop than rock and decided to put them in the pop article where they probably had the most influence.--SabreBD (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, I still think that the Beach Boys should be mentioned on both pages because their are many book sources suggesting that they developed both sub genres.SgtPetsounds (talk) 04:52, 07 March 2011 (UTC)
If we cannot distinguish between pop and rock strands it does raise the issue of why we have two seperate articles. Looks like one for the article talkpage, rather than here.--SabreBD (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Women & Glam

Hi Sabrebd,

Thanks! I agree, I am not sure if a separate section is needed or if just incorporating them into the article would be the best way to do it. I'd love to help in anyway with this, providing sources, ect, please let me know how I can help. :)

Mizz-X (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011


Your GA nomination of British rhythm and blues

The article British rhythm and blues you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:British rhythm and blues for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I must admit I'd forgotten it was even up for GA status - had I remembered, I wouldn't have tacked bits on in the last few days. But it's not something I ever give the remotest consideration to I'm afraid - I have zero regard for the FA/GA processes, or indeed for most of WP's bureaucratic processes. I'm sure Jez's comments are useful, but what's important is whether it's a useful article for readers, and it certainly is that in my view (which, at the end of day, carries as much weight as his or anyone else's). Never mind eh. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I know what you mean about the bureaucratic processes, but I try to keep faith with their spirit. GA and FA can be useful sometimes in getting some advice espeically since peer review basically doesn't work (and maybe in telling readers what is more/less reliable. However, sometimes it is frankly, bizarre. Oh well if you think of anything else for the article its something to work for, but as I always say - its just a hobby for me. Thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion

Seeing as you do a heap of work on music genre articles, I thought you may be able to help me. Do you think on this article I can bundle electronica and dance music and simply state electronic dance music, or should I leave them separately? Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

AN/I Notification

Informational note: this is to let you know that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, Doc talk 05:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Bill Graham (not the Reverend)

Thanks for the response on the Psychedelic Rock talk page. Bill actually deserves more than two sentences, and I'll add some of that as soon as I get a round tuit. Here's a link to an online book I "tripped" across recently: http://www.cjayarts.com/pages/library/CharlesPerry-haight_ashbury.pdf. I have no idea what its pedigree is, though the cover indicates it was published by Random House. It seems to do a nice job concisely summarizing life and folks in the Haight, plus in the spirit of those times, it's free. Allreet (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

OK if you do something on Bill, I will try to drag something together on Joe. Looks like we might have enough for a paragraph. I will take a look at the book when I get a bit of time, thanks for hunting that out.--SabreBD (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not as familiar with Boyd as I am with Graham, but that's an opportunity to learn. I did a quick search of Unterberger's Turn Turn Turn and Eight Miles High and surprisingly found only one passing reference to Graham, whereas Boyd is mentioned a handful of times in both. One difference between the two, I think, is that Graham was primarily a concert promoter, whereas Boyd was more involved as a producer. Another thing would be that Boyd was prominent on both shores. That's all from a quick read. Anyway, the pdf I passed along gives a good (though shadowy) picture of Graham in the San Francisco psychedelic scene beginning around 1965. Thanks...I'll keep in touch. 22:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I received a new message notification, but can't seem to find what it refers to on your talk page. Help! Thanks. Allreet (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Its so long ago that I can't remember either. I have a feeling that I replied to the message above, perhaps it didn't save. Sorry about that. If I remember what I said I will let you know.--SabreBD (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
My mistake. I received an alert for two new messages and confused your original template as one of them. I'll remove it. Apologies. Allreet (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I am relieved I haven't lost it quite as much as I feared.--SabreBD (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Revert?

What was this[2] about? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea. I can only assume I hit the rollback button by accident. Apologies about that.--SabreBD (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
No hay problema. Since you only did it once, I figured it was a mistake, but thought I would ask, to be sure. I've made that mistake a few times, when my brain and the mouse were not coordinating properly. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

Psychedelic rock

Thanks for providing the requested quote about "Day Tripper". DougHill (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem.--SabreBD (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

England

Don't vandalize. Proper explanation is needed along with the usage of "country" else it would cause confusion. You may discuss this in talk page of England — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aravind V R (talk • contribs) 08:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please be careful with accusations of vandalism (note WP:AGF). I reverted your edit under WP:BRD. You were bold, I reverted and now we discuss on the talkpage.--SabreBD (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Reverting without any reason isn't vandalism? Any way, this thing is discussed for long and it was decided "on the basis of majority opinion" to use the word "country". But using that word for a province which is not sovereign in clearly confusing so i added that explanation. You can certainly come up with new ideas for conveying that England is not a sovereign state. But till then don't remove that edit.Aravind V R (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Reverting a change that is against consensus certainly not vanadalism. Nor, in fact is reverting something that is disagreed with by another editor. Please read the rubric on WP:Vandalism very carefully, as this is pretty fundamental. Discussion on the issues should go on the article talkpage not here. I am pointing this out in a friendly spirit and I hope this all helps. If you want further clarification over guidelines then feel free to ask here and I will try to help.--SabreBD (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Roots rock deletions

I added information to Roots rock. Critic Simon Braund from UK's Empire Magazine, in Reverb Nation, described the LA band Patrolled By Radar as a Roots Rock band; another website called Dailymotion lists the band as "Roots Rock". I provided two inline citations. You deleted my addition along with the references on the grounds that they weren't "reliable". Please explain why you think these views are not reliable. Further, I notice the Roots rock article has few inline citations meaning almost all of this information is hard to verify; I am wondering why you are deleting inline citations in favor of hard-to-check references in books?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take these points to the article talkpage in the first instance.--SabreBD (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Well... thank you very much, though I don't really think I deserve it - or, at least, no more than several others. We shall wait and see whether the latest wording sticks any longer than any other. But, I do appreciate the thought. I think I've found a knack to getting involved in UK / BI articles, but I won't tell you what it is! Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You really do deserve it. Keep up the good work.--SabreBD (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, and same goes for me (but not the bit about having a knack for UK/BI articles!). DeCausa (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Your welcome. My guess that his knack is to go kick the cat everytime someone posts an unhelpful comment. Poor cat.--SabreBD (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sabrebd/Autoarchive_1&oldid=1181443090"