User talk:Sabrebd

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		In recognition of your major cleanup of the Surf music article. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Culture of Yorkshire

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

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

Dick

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

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

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

Up to u…

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

Lucy Locket

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

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

Nursery Rhymes

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

Please advise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Frank Matheis-- musician, radio producer and writer

if it's okay for me to intrude - i'm the editor who left several messages on your talk page regarding the link you've been adding to multiple articles, because i was trying to be helpful to you. i hope you've had time to read some of the Wikipedia policies i pointed out to you there, because you'll see that indeed it isn't regarded as okay to barrage articles with a link to your own website, even though it's not a commercial site. among other policies, please see Wikipedia:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest, which states "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked."

a far better approach is to go to some talk pages of articles that your site is directly relevant to (that means "a few well-chosen ones", not "as many as you can"), point out the ways in which your site is relevant and worthwhile, and allow other interested editors to decide whether or not to add your link. it's even better if you can also find other constructive ways to add to Wikipedia articles, once you get familiar with the relevant policies. hope that helps Sssoul (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Anyway, now I have to say that I am astonished. Your only answer is "I am the editor and it is OK for me to intrude?" Is this really all it takes?

I ask you once more for a fair and objective evaluation. The six hour blues primer Podcast alone should be convincing to anyone that it adds to the history of the blues. All of the links that you deleted tie directly to the site.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

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

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

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

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

please read what the Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided policy says: "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked." that is a concrete point that's been made several times already.

again: you should go to the talk pages of a few articles you feel your site is particularly relevant to and ask other editors to consider including a link to your site. that is a concrete recommendation for how you should be approaching this.

i don't understand what you mean by "Please at least clarify who my communication partners are". are you asking who i am? i'm one of several thousand volunteer editors of Wikipedia.

the steps available for dispute resolution are outlined at WP:Dispute resolution.

you may also wish to comment on the external links noticeboard, where i've asked for some assistance in getting you familiarized with Wikipedia policies. getting acquainted with Wikipedia policies is essential if you hope to make lasting contributions to the encyclopedia.

hope that helps Sssoul (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

I quote: "Blues/Country spam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hope this helps ...

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

Thanks for your comments on Boy Band

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

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

JANET!

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

Ouch. Thanks for that. Good luck with the FA status. I would offer to help but apart from a bit of copy editing I don't think there is much I could do.--SabreBD (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Its fine. I've already got three supports, so I don't think it will have any trouble passing. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, and Happy Holidays. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814 and offering any advice? I had someone give it a copy edit and I'd like some more feedback before I nominate for FA. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi and seasons greetings. Sure, I will have a look tomorrow, as just off to bed.--SabreBD (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You changed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, I finally found good references and I edited.

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

Greetings (Mago266 (talk))

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

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

Swamp Rock & Swamp Pop

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

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

Little Richard Article

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

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

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

Dave Pegg

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

Its good work, thanks. When I worked on expanding and cleaning up that article I was new to using citations on Wikipedia. In fact the way you used cite book to provide a link to the reference section was the first time I had seen this, and it seems a good system. You live and learn. Thanks again.--SabreBD (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been editing since end April 2009, and I've forgotten how I found out how to do the various referencing techniques. Looking back at which Help: or Wikipedia: pages that I might have used, they don't seem familiar; some stress the non-linking methods (without using any templates at all) and some go over the top with Harvard style vs Vancouver style and all the rest, and overcomplicate it. I always meant to work up a readable help page; my current (unfinished) attempt is at User:Redrose64/Referencing Demo.

Quick precis of the final version:

• In the article text, use {{sfn}} throughout. This eliminates the need for <ref></ref>
• Have a "Notes" section containing {{reflist|colwidth=20em}}.
• Have a "References" section containing a list of the books, etc. and use {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}} or {{cite web}} as appropriate for each one, remembering to add |ref=harv to every single one.

Admittedly this doesn't match Dave Pegg, because I used <ref>{{harvnb}}</ref> instead of {{sfn}}, and all the web citations are in the article body not down in "References", but, for the books at least, the principle is similar and the effect is identical. It can be done for web pages too, but you really need an author to get the linking to work. Have a look at Reading Southern railway station which fully goes by the method of my precis (but has no true web page citations). --Redrose64 (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Baroque music of the British Isles

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

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

OK. Thanks. --Kleinzach 23:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Welcome

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

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

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

Greetings.. can you help?

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

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

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