User talk:Sssoul/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Angie talk page[edit]

Go check this out. I don't even know what to make of it. Apparently someone else wrote "Angie." Stan weller (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This person seems quite sure that "Angie" was written for her. She even wrote me an email. What do you make of this? She says to look up Dolph Trayman, but I just can't imagine how this is possible. I've never heard anything to suggest the song wasn't written by the Stones. I've even heard the demos with the London Symphony Orchestra.
And you have a very happy new year as well. Keep up the good work. Stan weller (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Prescisely, but yikes! I didn't even know people could email you through wikipedia. I'll have to do something aobut that. Stan weller (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

s's[edit]

I have addressed your comment on the possessive form of proper names ending with a sibilant here. The issue came up at Johannes Brahms and there is some discussion of it there as well. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking arbitration[edit]

I've started a request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Date delinking which you may wish to comment on. —Locke Coletc 06:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Mick Avory vs Tony Chapman[edit]

Hello Sssoul, I hope that I did the right thing. I created an account and it looks like I'm now communicating with you. I understand what you meant with "personal quotes", etc.

I will mention the details of Karnbach's book, that includes the Mick Avory/Tony Chapman issue (drummer with the Rolling Stones on July 12, 1962): The book is titled: It's Only Rock 'n' Roll, The Ultimate Guide to the Rolling Stones; authors: James Karnbach & Carol Benson. Publisher: Facts On File, Inc. New York, NY, 1997; the information is on pages 57 and 58. ISBN 0816030359 - ISBN 0816035474. I had met with Karnbach and by coincidence I met Mick Avory not much after that, so I could also ask him in person. And he confirmed what's written in Karnbach's book.

The other book you asked about with the title "Stu" is a special case, I think. Being very expensive, and with only 950 "de Luxe" copies (probably sold out), I was lucky to be able to borrow it and get the information I wanted. I think it's the most reliable book on Ian Stewart with extensive contributions of all members and former members (exc. Brian Jones) of the Rolling Stones, managers, studio musicians, relatives, etc.

I agree with you, that the info on Charlie Watts may cause confusion, however, Dick Taylor's quote has to be taken serious to start with, because he played the bass on July 12, 1962. I hope all the above this gets to you in good order Sjoerd. Juilliard2005 (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! As you suggested, I have added information to the Mick Avory page. They indeed were completely wrong (even mentioning Charlie Watts too early). The Rolling Stones page has the correct information. Not surprising, because I as well as others had mentioned the July 12, 1962 issue several times in the past (as a non-subscriber still :-)). I could not find the Jagger quote in th book "Stu", but it sounded familiar to me so I'll continue searching. Juilliard2005 (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

50th birthday party[edit]

Nice one. I was just about to cut that, when you got there first! SilkTork *YES! 10:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

the recent round of comments on the piece are pretty helpful ... i'd leave in something about his friendship with Clapton though - at least the sentence about their remaining friends after the Eric married Pattie. Sssoul (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom clerk[edit]

You nailed it. I clearly remember him saying that too. There is a huge problem that one never knows if clerks are acting in their personal or official capacity. Please see the motions I proposed in workshop. BTW, is there any reason why don't you have email enabled? Ohconfucius (talk) 07:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

i truly can't fathom how an ArbCom clerk could launch something like that without explicit ArbCom backing/approval/involvement - but then, this whole process is full of things i can't fathom. i disenabled email because the only people who contacted me that way were unpleasant whackos - thanks for asking, though! Sssoul (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Email is good for a whole lot of things on WP. I've made friends all over the world of many of those who've initiated email contact – FAC nominators are a good example. You can funnel Wiki emails into a designated box in your email system. I must say that I've not had one single negative email in my nearly four years. Tony (talk) 07:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Stones trivia[edit]

Hey sorry it took me so long to respond. Been busy with school and stuff. But yes i do agree that some consensus is called for with regard to the edits of the trivia sections. I think I was upset at how out of control they had become. I'll take care with any further edits. Stan weller (talk) 08:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


Thx for your bringing dividers up[edit]

How about I change the hierarchy of the sections to make the distinctions more obvious? Just trying to avoid e.c.s with you. I won't do it until you're done. Tony (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

i'm done now, Tony - go for whatever you think will make the section-breaks clear! Sssoul (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Date autoformatting poll[edit]

Hi there, Sssoul! Thanks for your support. Just to let you know I have created some userboxes which you might like to add to your userspace to indicate your position. You will find the boxes here. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ian Stewart[edit]

Hi Per credits on Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out Ian Stewart plays piano on fall 1969 US tour. Regards VytalVytal (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You have to com...[edit]

On this issue. Hopefully you can make a "silk purse" out of whatever "sows ear" text appears in the KR piece. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

very kind of you ... i don't feel very successful at communicating with those two, but i'll do my best to keep smoothing out whatever creeps into the article. so far it seems like one is fairly open to being edited, and the other stays mainly on the talk page instead of trying to add much to the article. both of which are very good things, so ... i am hopeful. 8) Sssoul (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Creep... hmmm... what a fitting wor... oh... nevermind. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

sigh: i'm so sorry to see i have to take back that "fairly open to being edited" - and that someone can think they're paying attention and STILL not notice Keith's non-Tele 5-strings. i'll be grateful for any available back-up Sssoul (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

My typo[edit]

Thank you for correcting my typo on the /Date delinking/Workshop page. You mustn't apologise, it was my fault for editing when I was going bleary-eyed. Please feel free to barge in anytime on my edits when I foul-up! Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Quotations/wikilink[edit]

In case you weren't keeping an eye on this ...just wanted to say thanks! - SoSaysChappy (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

User:John[edit]

Well said. There are too many casualties, and this one is totally innocent. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

a major step backwards[edit]

Hi Sssoul—I see that Army has argued that words such as "custard" should be linked. He has suddenly removed the rule against the linking of common words in WP:LINKING. Extraordinary to do this without prior discussion at the talk page. If I were allowed to revert, I'd do so immediately. Wikipedia_talk:Linking#.22plain_English_words.22 Tony (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

going away[edit]

Hi Sssoul, I'm uncomfortable about the wholesale changes to WP:LINK, as I think you are. However, I'm off until the weekend after next, with possible intermittent net access, or none. I do hope things can be held stable at that page in the meantime. Thanks for your good work. Tony (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

re: sigh[edit]

Someone else got to it before I got into work/Wiki today. I will watch it. The band has played music that could be thought of as hard rock. But I believe all previous discussions on this ended up with... they haven't played enough of it... so thats how it should stay. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for keeping an eye on it ... indeed, i can think of at least seven other genres/subgenres they've done more of, so ... why even start listing them? smile: remember that glorious week when the genre field was eliminated? that felt great. Sssoul (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Watch out for starry eyed fanboy and his IP sock[edit]

Keep a look out for IP 74.73.110.46 who also edits under the username CosmicLegg (who you caught crufting the Pete Townshend page). The user is a starry eyed fanboy who wants to elevate The Who into the outer realms of the all-powerful... not that they can't be because they are an incredible band... but this user has a bad habit of taking vague citations and reqarding text to match his own fanboy pov. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You're a real piece of work, Wiki libs. I'm not CosmicLegg. And I don't take vague citations and whatever text to match a fanboy pov. I type the truth, like The Who's fame rose with memorable performances at Monterey and Woodstock. And then, when the ignorant challenge me on things like that, I add citations stating precisely what I typed. Citations from sources as reputable as the Encyclopedia Britannica. I'm a watchdog who does his homework. I've added dozens of citations to The Who's article over the years. And I'm no mere fanboy. I've excised dodgy sales claims and weak influence claims from The Who's article many times. I just recently tried to do that with the Jeff Beck and Jimi Hendrix name drops in the Influence section of The Who's article. Guess who fought me on that? CosmicLegg, the guy you're accusing me of being. And here's another little tidbit for you. When I tried to excise the 300 million sales claim from Led Zeppelin's page, another band I'm protective of, you fought me tooth and nail. So don't throw the "starry eyed fanboy" tag at me when you're living in a glass house. 74.73.110.46 (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Your turn[edit]

Your turn The Real Libs-speak politely 17:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Tag team[edit]

Tag teaming on The Rolling Stones to avoid 3RR, eh? Yeah, I saw the Your turn subject that Wiki libs added to this talk page and that you responded to and deleted. I doubt tag teaming to avoid 3RR is in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Seems like bad form to me. What say you? 74.73.110.46 (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

smile: i reverted you on my own, thanks. go your gentle way Sssoul (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder...[edit]

... if The Source of Wiki Power and another editor are the same person. Or at least know one another. Like I say, I wonder. Seduisant (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

smile: i don't think "veiled references" are going to help! please consider raising that question with the mediators - there are procedures for checking whether someone's using more than one account. Sssoul (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The new account is much more of an a**hole than that other "same person/know one another" If a behind the scenes CU needs to be done I will see what I can do. Meanwhile the user has already busted WP:#rr and can easily be reported for that. His edit summary where he declares he is just going to keep reverting is pretty much a cut-n-dry self-sentence to a block. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit War[edit]

You sent me a message about edit-warring and its consequences but you have not sent anything to "Fairdeal" on the Robert Johnson Page and the Little Richard page. Two Pages. This user is becoming obsessed with reverting everything I do. Its in a sense harassment. If you send me something, send something to the other person who was involved also. The Source of Wiki Power (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't mind this tr***... he's about to go bye-bye back down under his bridge. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks The Source of Wiki Power (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
And now there's the IP to go back under the bridge right along with its owner. The Real Libs-speak politely 03:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Whats the purpose of the "Under the Bridge Comments" Now I think that your talking bad about me and if thats so you can go "bye-bye back down under your bridge " with your IP "156.34.142.110" and you the ownwer The Real Libs-speak politely. It's not necessary for stupid comments like that especially if the statements were not address to you tr***... So if you have some constructive critizism for the Little Richard article or the Robert Johnson go right ahead and tell me. Stop being in violation of Wikipedia:Don't be inconsiderate. Your not an admin so I realize I dont have to address you. So go back to under the bridge you came from. The Source of Wiki Power (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Rod Stewart[edit]

Just a doffing of my cap in admiration for this edit. I've read that paragraph dozens of times, and never noticed it. I've also heard it said he was born at an early age, but can't find a cite to confirm. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Glimmer Twins[edit]

Hi Sssoul...I've added several singles titles and promo titles to your Jagger/Richards listing, all of course can be found in The Rolling Stones discography. Now this list really looks complete. Nice work you've done on this yourself! Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the encouraging words - but it's not "my listing". i just tidied it up some. Sssoul (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed[edit]

OK , all fxed up, thanks for the note. That is the "biggest" template, probably 500 new instances a day, so it's good to get it right. Rich Farmbrough 11:52 4 July 2009 (UTC).

Pop music[edit]

Hi. I did do the research, and spotted a couple of errors in the text and also tried to provide a slight expansion of the article, which I think will give it some of the things it needs without opening up the danger of it becoming a list of popular music artist. I'd really appreciate it if you could have a look at it on my sandbox at: User:Sabrebd/Sandbox and let me know what you think when you can find the time.--Sabrebd (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

hello and thanks for the work, and for asking me to have a look. i'm really busy these days, but from a cursory glance it looks like you're moving in some right directions here, but also at times veering mighty close to that problem of differentiating between this particular genre and popular music. the way record charts classify things, for example, is not an especially reliable genre guideline - look at the history of the term R&B, for example, and the terms it replaced/has been replaced by over the decades. that's just one reason i feel record chart classifications belong in the article on record charts, way more than in this one.
i'd also like to think about some smoother/clearer phrasing for the first sentence of the rewrite. as i say i am really busy right now but i will be thinking about it.
again thanks for working on this. Sssoul (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for finding time to look this and comment. I will probably give it a little bit of time (I find it easier to spot my own errors then), then do a re-edit based on your points before I post it. You can always edit it on the article at some later date when you get more time. The reference to charts was just a statement of fact, as that was the first reference the OED could find, but I do see what you mean, pop and charts are not the same, that error was one of the big problems with the earlier long article. --Sabrebd (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know I tried to incorporate your comments and posted it, mainly as I wanted my sandbox back. If you come up with better or more elegant solutions you can always edit it there, I am pretty unlikely to object. Thanks.--Sabrebd (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thanks - it looks mainly good. could you clarify this part, though, please and thank you? i'd tackle it myself as you invited me to above, but i don't understand it:
  • From the 1950s the term "pop music" began to be used to to describe a distinct genre, initially to distinguish it in the newly emerging charts of record sales
i'd smooth it out to something like "The use of the term "pop music" to describe a distinct genre started in the 1950s. Initially it was used to distinguish the newly recognized genre in record-sales charts ..." but ... [scratching head] ultimately i don't understand what that actually means: to distinguish it from what? if "from rock and roll", then this statement is redundant vis-a-vis the bit that follows it. and to me the bit that follows it reads better, is more informative and is more appropriately sourced. Sssoul (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I see your point, this is what happens when you try to compact too much into a few sentences. The only way I can see of clarifying the section is to expand it - perhaps something like:

The term "pop song" is first recorded as being used in 1926 in the sense of a piece of music "having popular appeal".[1] From the 1950s the term "pop music" began to be used to draw a distinction with the newly emerging charts of record sales from the former "race music" of rhythm and blues.[1] This traditional pop music was dominated by white singers, of which the most successful was Frank Sinatra, usually backed by large jazz bands. With the arrival of rock 'n' roll in the mid-1950s, pop became identified with music aimed at a youth market. As the initial rock 'n' roll impulse subsided, teen pop music became the most important form of music in record sales, dominated by the Brill Building Sound.[2] Initially, the beat music and blues orientated bands of the British invasion were viewed as simply part of pop music, but in its aftermath, from about 1967, as some bands, including the Beatles and Rolling Stones, moved into more ambitious territory orientated towards albums, the term was increasingly used in opposition to rock music, to describe a form that was more commercial, ephemeral and accessible.[3] Although pop music is often seen as oriented towards the singles charts, as a genre it is not the sum of all chart music, which have always contained songs from a variety of sources, including classical, jazz, rock, and novelty songs, while pop music as a genre is usually seen as existing and developing separately.[4]

This is rough and I haven't had chance to footnote it properly. I am away for a couple of days if you can get the chance to look it over. Not sure if I have diluted the pop music as genre idea.--Sabrebd (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks for this - there are lots of interesting points in what you wrote, but yeah it does undermine the point that this article is about a specific genre quite a lot. i think part of the problem is that lots of sources in fact don't distinguish clearly between popular music in general and the specific genre that this article is trying to be about. a lot of what you've written above would work nicely in the popular music article, but i feel that the pop music article was better off with the previous unelaborated statement from allmusic.com to the effect that starting in the 1950s the term was used to refer to a specific genre viewed as a "lighter" alternative to rock & roll, and then writing about the characteristics of that genre, without slithering into the territory that record charts were calling "pop". that's a different kettle of fish, truly. Sssoul (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Back to basics (trying to balance accuracy with clarity):
The term "pop song" is first recorded as being used in 1926 in the sense of a piece of music "having popular appeal".[1] From the 1950s the term "pop music" began to be used to to describe a distinct genre, aimed at a youth market, often as a softer alternative to rock 'n' roll.--Sabrebd (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
looks good - can we change the second sentence a bit, to avoid the awkward "from the 1950s" and the mysterious missing participle in the "often as" clause - often what as - often described as?? often conceived of as?? something like ... hm ... how's this:
Starting in the 1950s the term "pop music" has been used to to describe a distinct genre, aimed at a youth market, often characterized as a softer alternative to rock and roll.
Sssoul (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me--Sabrebd (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
actually i woke up realizing that "often characterized by" is "weasel wording": who often characterizes it that way?? i guess taking out the "often" and adding the allmusic ref would solve that problem, though. Sssoul (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC) sorry and pass the caffeine, please - i now see what you've done in the article, and as long as that source supports the "often characterized" that's all very cool indeed. thanks very much! Sssoul (talk) 07:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The source does, but I decided to put the All Music one back in as well, because it is easier to access (and so to support the point). I think I am done with this article for a while as I cannot see any way of expanding without inviting many arguments about the "best pop band ever". I look forward to deleting lists of bands and references to the king of pop for the next few months. Thanks for all the co-operation, which was very helpful and what WP should really be all about.--Sabrebd (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) thank you very much indeed for your great work on this poor beleaguered article - i'd say it was a pleasure working with you, but you did all the work! so: it was a pleasure interacting with you. swing on! Sssoul (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Custard, horse, chariot, island[edit]

Sssoul, I am unrestricted on talk pages and elsewhere. At the moment, I just can't edit the actual style guide pages. Tony (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

ah good - swing on, in that case! Sssoul (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Question on Wikipedia Survey[edit]

Hi, Sssoul. we're encouraged by your positive answer on Wikipedia survey in Help-desk. We're considering of cooperating with Wikimedia foundation. The exposure of survey website to Wikipedians matters. In the case of Korean-language, we contacted admins here and they proposed to provide the link to survey website in the front page of Koeran wikipedia. As our research compares two version fo Korean and English, we wonder same method is also possible in English version. What do you think?

i think it's too bad you didn't sign your post so that i could reply on your talk page! as i wrote on the help desk i hope the English wikipedia would be willing to cooperate with you on your survey but i am not the person to discuss it with - i'm not an administrator and i have no idea who you need to contact. try the Village Pump - someone there should have some idea who to talk to. Sssoul (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thank your for your advice and i'll create an account soon.

Barnstar[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I award you this Barnstar for your recent work in keeping the Little Richard page from deteriorating into a fansite. Said work displays a degree of patience and persistence we could all learn from. Seduisant (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy to oblige[edit]

Yes, of course I'll help. I've hated this section from the beginning, and resent the tone of its author, especially the implication that somehow, by trying to Wikify unreadable content, other editors are conspiring to minimize LR's influence. In particular, I find the assertion that "you DON'T know the significance of this information!" personally offensive - even though the "you" isn't me. And I despise the use of MySpace pages as encyclopedic sources.

I'll stop by the page in the next 24 hours and post a reasoned commentary. Among the many things I'll mention is the questionable addition of Bowie and the members of AC/DC as LR heirs - nothing against these gents, you understand, it's just....AC/DC? Really? Seduisant (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Linking[edit]

I replied to your messages at WT:LINK. I'm not sure if I answered all of your concerns; in particular, I'm not sure what other archived suggestions you are referring to. What do you mean by "the current structure was imposed prematurely"? Do you mean my edits, or do you refer to an earlier restructuring? I'm asking because I didn't really start out with the intention to impose a structure, but it may have turned out that way. Please don't be afraid to criticize me; I know what I can do alone is far from perfect - that's why we're working in a team! — Sebastian 16:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

by "the current structure" i mean the one imposed a few months ago. the discussion of it is now archived, and i provided a link to in my recent posts and in the section called "back to that proposed restructuring". if you look at the archived discussion, you'll see that the person who implemented it did so in mid-discussion, without taking into account a lot of the points people were raising. Sssoul (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
That's a long discussion, and I am not convinced it's the best use of my time to delve into a change history to find out who implemented what when. It would be much clearer for everyone if we had a neat little list of the changes that got missed. Can you please write that at WT:LINK? Thanks! — Sebastian 22:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
um ... i have other things to do with my time as well, Sebastian! if it's really too much to skim that, maybe it'll be helpful to at least be aware that the way this page originated and then got reorganized does have a history. Sssoul (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Would it help if I make a list of the changes? Tony (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Tony, thanks, but the discussion seems to have moved on to other issues now. Sssoul (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Response[edit]

Hey, just wanted to let you know I replied to your comment on my talk page. Sorry for the delay. 2help (message me) 03:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Possessives frazzle[edit]

Hi Sssoul. Noetica is being a cranky old man. You can safely ignore his grumpiness, which is less than skin-deep, I think. I've started a new section where people can try to sort out the text amicably. Can we try to harmonise/compromise/whatever on this matter? It's here. Tony (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for stepping in, Tony, and for the reassurance. i don't enjoy being badgered and dissed like that just because i decline to engage in combat; my point is simply that no one editor is authorized to make that kind of change to the MoS without discussion/consensus. whether or not i personally agree with the idea of the change isn't even relevant - that section really does have a history as a battleground. anyway i'm trying to formulate a concise statement as a reply to you. thanks again. Sssoul (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the 'good read'[edit]

On the good read topic... one interview I've been looking to re-read is an interview with Alan Rogan from Guitar Player Mag... somewhere in the early 80s. It's a great interview where Rogan talks about the gear used by Woody and Keef on the NA/Europe tours from the previous year(s). He talks about the acquisition of Bill Wyman's short scale Travis Bean too. I can't find that mag in my archives. If you know a link... or a link to a scan of that interview I would mucho-appreciate it. Thanks! The Real Libs-speak politely 12:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Good little interview... but not the one I am looking for though... unfortunately. The one I am trying to find is from the Guitar Player Magazine from this issue... I think??? The Real Libs-speak politely 14:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks... I know I have it somewhere? Just can't find it. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Accidental revert[edit]

I accidentally reverted you at The Rolling Stones, and didn't realize it (it can happen with the iPhone interface). Sorry about that; someone else already reverted me, but I wanted to let you know it was an accident and I didn't intend to revert you. Mike Christie (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

ah so - thanks for clarifying that, because i'm not into "genre warring". swing on ... Sssoul (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediation[edit]

The Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation
Dear Sssoul/Archive 2: Hello, my name is MacMed; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:
[[{{{1}}}]]

I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions or queries relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards,

Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 01:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

This may interest you. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

i noticed that - interesting indeed! people are strange ... thanks Sssoul (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Blues[edit]

Dear Sssoul, I have tried to improve the blues article along the lines you suggested. I would be glad if you could comment. Thanks. Vb (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

YYYY-MM-DD numerical date format in footnotes[edit]

Hello, an RfC is now open for your comments on this issue at Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal_on_YYYY-MM-DD_numerical_dates. -- Alarics (talk) 09:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Sssoul[edit]

I wanted to thank you for the copyediting you did on my quick dash writing on the Mick Taylor article. You are good. I can be, in that respect, but just saw words in some place like "supposedly" (which is really a weasel word) abd so forth, but I shouldn't have been in there editing without having gained a more intimate feel for what had been written all the way through, on the basis of what reliable references existed. Do you use Wikimedia Commons? I know a photographer who has allowed us a couple of her vintage Rolling Stones photos: the new Keith Richards one in black and white, and also the one of Mick Taylor from the same period. (She knows lots of musicians through many positions in the music industry, so really she isn't just a photographer. Here's my problem right now. I had been uploading photos to Commons using the "Bryan" Flickr-upload. When that broke down, I did it manually. Though I've asked for help for over a year, nobody seems to be able to explain to me what a TUSC account is, or does, and the same for ORTIS. As a surprise, my friend sent me via email a photo of a recent Mick Taylor photo that surely belongs in the infobox, with her blessings. The permission is on the email. But she didn't put it in Flickr, and I don't know how to upload it to Commons myself because I've only dealt with Flickr uploads. Can you do it? If I forwarded the photo to you, could you upload it? It's really bothering me that I can't do it. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the encouraging words - i dig your work too. unfortunately, i know nothing at all about uploading images, and am not particularly gifted at figuring out things like that, so i'm afraid i won't be much help with that. the newly contributed photos look mighty fine - please convey my gratitude and appreciation to the photographer. Sssoul (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Little R[edit]

Hey Sssoul. I was going to rv the latest slew of IP sock edits to the little richard page but thought I would wait for you to review and ponder. If Sssoul says no then libs pop it back. The Real Libs-speak politely 08:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology[edit]

Sssoul, today I just had it with all the rules that change with the wind in Commons. I freaked out, and you were th unfortunate person in the path of my rage. I'm just so tired of having to adapt every which way there when I've never had any course in using computers and unlike here, few people will try to break it down in layman's terms, and those who do still assume I know far more than I do. So I really am sorry you were there at the time. If you check my user page you'll see I've uploaded so many images, but since I used (a broken) Flickr upload bot, no tally anywhere will actually reflect that. I hope you forgive the outburst. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

no apologies needed - again, i know nothing (0) about image-related issues, so all i can do is sympathize without comprehending. if/when you do have time to ask that photographer to confirm 1972 as the year those shots were taken (or to correct it - but i'm over 99% sure they're from 72) that would be great, but obviously it can wait for a less-frustrated moment. Sssoul (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Sssoul, yeah, I'm just begging every competant editor to explain Commons, so sorry 'bout that. I was so sick of seeing NO photos on biography pages it drove me crazy. So after 2 years of editing here, I spent the better part of the last one looking for photos --takes up maybe 40% (or more) of a full day editing, but the reward is cool. The only bummer is these (insert foul language :) people at Commons; it's like you gotta read a freaking manual to understand what half the stuff and templates there are even for. And once you do understand... ...they change the bleedin' rules! I've not felt so frustrated in my life than with them; unfortunately the photos have to come through Commons.

Oh one other thing, I keep adding pics. Feel free to move them. When possible, until an article is being considered for GA status, if I put a photographer's name in the caption, please leave it there till the last minute as a favor, OK? Some of the photographers (these are mostly pros), are worried about theft of their art. I am coming to Flickr and literally asking them to give up their copyright to us! The best I can offer is to put their name for at least some time under the photo so they get the exposure and maybe new customers. I feel that's fair enough. The Stones photos you've seen, and Led Zeppelin ones and some others from other photographers were slated to be sold to books and I've been able to get them to let us have them. Don't know if you've seen my user page but I began listing uploads- there's only 1/4th there and it's a lot. Can we agree on the caption's attribution till GA time? Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

i have no problem with photographers being credited - i know they get removed on Wikipedia, but it won't be me removing them. Sssoul (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology[edit]

Ok, sorry for mis-representing your view. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 12:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

that's okay - i reckoned it wasn't intentional. what i wrote must have been unclear somehow. Sssoul (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"Seeking more caffeine"[edit]

made me laugh. ;^)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 02:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Dead links[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Journal_of_Popular_Film_%26_Television&diff=322704983&oldid=322694973

The link here isn't a dead link - It is a link for purchasing the full article to read. In citations it is acceptable to link to article purchase pages. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Blues/Country spam[edit]

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)

These comments are preposterous and border on insulting. You are colluding in so-called editorial actions which are unsupportable and inappropriate, and abusing both the principles of common courtesy and the foundation idea of Wikipedia. The unfounded allegation that I am spamming is, frankly, absurd and unwarranted. This dialogue shows me that there in no objectivity and fairness on your part in this process. You are just going to gang up on me and no matter what rebuttal I present and how much I point to factual support of why my posts were legitimate, your are just "supporting each other". You have refused to provide any legitimate basis for your decisions and actions, which are clearly without basis. In my eyes, any intellectual discourse should be based on reason and fairness. You have demonstrated neither. This is nothing short of an abuse of power and a shameful action. You can call your self editors, but I deal with professional editors, with legitimate intellectuals and producers daily, and I know Scheisster pretenders when I see them. Shame on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matheisf (talkcontribs) 13:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of minimising confusion and to avoid having crossover in discussion, I have replied on my talk page at my talk page.--SabreBD (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop[edit]

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

S- thanks![edit]

Thanks for the cleanup of all the excessive wikilinks on Robert Cray. The only reason I left off removing them is because I got an extremely unhappy note on my talkpage from User:Derek Bullamore, who I would have thought by now would agree with me that people who read a biography of a musician would surely know what a record was, without wikifying it. (He disagreed vehemently). It's still on my talk page, it was so recent. Sigh. I've had a good working relationship with him for the past couple of years and hate confrontation, but Robert Cray has played with so many other musicians that I end up returning to the page. I swear, the page was nearly all blue with links for the slightest thing! I finally told him I'd back off the articles he worked on if he'd do the favor, figuring someone else would find the page as I did, and help bring it back to standards. It was YOU, and a big thank you for doing so.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Pete Townshend page - I am not in an edit war[edit]

Hi, thank you for posting on the talk, no i am not taking part in an 'edit war', and i mean that politely,

someone/ people seem to be removing and reverting info that was in there for quite some time and was legit information,

but just want to take it out because its about that guitarist. I think theres a word for that in 'Wiki' talk as they say...

but no i am not 'edit warring' so to speak.... But thank you for showing concern however, and attempting to remedy the situation ,

much appreciated. --Occultaphenia (talk) 10:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

-I appreciate your attempts at trying to avoid an edit war. the individual in question was a sock with a POV for Jimmy Page, against Pete Townshend, and had made numerous attempts to edit/remove info accordingly, dispute myself being diplomatic bout alot of information. He has now been banned for a bit. --Occultaphenia (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Opinions without a reason[edit]

I am pleased you made the change as it makes me look less illiterate, but please add to the opinion you have given, as in this type of survey opinions without a reason usually get discounted when assessing whether there is a consensus for or against something. -- PBS (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Keith Richards's Musical Equipment[edit]

Thanks for the help in getting that section up and running. I'm new to Wikipedia, and clearly have a lot of reading to do; I do try to be helpful. I'll have to have a look through my plethora of Stones books for some information on amplifiers - unless, of course, you can cite photographs as legitimate evidence. Is this possible?--Alex MacPherson 16:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

hello Alexmacpherson - it's great that you started that section, and that you took my edits in the spirit in which they were intended. Wikipedia does seem to have a lot of "rules" at first, but it's only a question of getting the hang of the "house style", and i hope some of the links in that "welcome" thingy i left on your page will be useful to you. meanwhile yeah you can cite a photo, as long as it's a] unmistakably what you say it is, and b] in a book, magazine, website or video that's regarded as a reliable source. if i can help, let me know.
by the way, i'm a i'm a she-sssoul, and don't play any musical instruments - but i resonate to them, and i've somehow developed this trainspotterish interest in Keith's guitars.
happy editing! Sssoul (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
ps: one more thing we need to sort out is that the new section repeats some of the information that's already in the "Guitar playing" section. i think we could simply delete that paragraph about his instruments - the one between the explanation of open G and his use of effects - and perhaps move this new section closer to that one, but probably it's best to ask on the article talk page to see if other editors envision a different solution. Sssoul (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree; there are definitely some pieces of information that stand to be repeated as we work on this. I think we could probably incorporate "playing style" or something of the sort into the new section: perhaps "musical equipment and playing style" could be the new title. I did a little bit of looking for information on amplifiers, and there really isn't much that's extant. Most of what I know comes from forums of dedicated fans who, despite being absolutely correct in their analysis, aren't considered reputable sources. Any ideas? Is it possible to cite photographs from books, or must everything be text-based?Alex MacPherson 17:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

sorry if i wasnt clear enough above: yes you can "cite" photos if they're in books/magazines/websites that count as reliable sources, and if they're clear enough that there's no question of their identity (a photo wouldn't be enough to assert that Keith's white ES-345 is from 1964, for example). but if both those conditions are met, just give the page number or the url for the photo as you would for text.
as for the repetition: i guess i wasn't clear about that either. it's not good that the new section repeats stuff that's already in the "Guitar playing" section. i've asked for input on how other editors envision solving this on the talk page: Talk:Keith Richards#eliminating duplicate information. at the moment i think the best solution is to make a separate article out of the "equipment" section, but maybe there's a better way. Sssoul (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I found a source for Keith's Fender Twins. As for the signature, I ddidn't think I'd eliminated the link to my talk page. I just checked, and it ought to be there. And yes, I've got to set it up to watch this page. If I can't figure it out for some reason, I'll let you know.Alex MacPherson (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

cool about the Twins! and the link to your talk page is there now, so all systems are go. thanks Sssoul (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been following the discussion (or lack thereof) on the KR article's discussion page, and concluded that we are the only two people bent on establishing a proper list of his musical equipment. While your comment about the lack of biographical information is certainly viable, I don't necessarily have the energy to commit to that right now. I'm going to do some more digginga and see what else I can come up with. The perennial problem is, of course, that most published works don't focus on gear; it's solely the domain of the rabid Stones fans. There are forums full of accurate information, but finding legitimate sources is going to be tough. I'll keep you posted though...Alex MacPherson (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

not everyone is on line every day, but yeah, maybe no one else is too interested at the moment. which is part of the reason we might consider making the gear section a separate article - not everyone gets into the "technical details". 8) i'll pursue the question of which "solution" we prefer on the article's talk page as soon as i find a minute - i'm pretty busy today, but i hope i'll have time before thursday. maybe i can also email you some articles i have scans of, in case they're useful.
i sympathize with the difficulty of tackling his biography - especially since it would necessitate dismantling the way the article is structured right now. it's a bit daunting ... ah well, maybe when his autobiography comes out that will be a basis for that undertaking. Sssoul (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
If I were to undertake a project of that magnitude, I'd simply copy and paste the entire page into a notepad window, and use my talk page -- or some other article, for that matter -- to check previews. That way you wouldn't have to do it piece by piece. Alex MacPherson (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
... right, i'm glad to hear you know that that's a good way to work. meanwhile, i hope you'll find time to respond to the question on Keith's talk page about whether the gear section should be part of the article or a separate article ... thanks Sssoul (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I posted my opinion on the KR discussion page. Let's wait a few days, see what develops, and if there's nothing else, we'll get to work.Alex MacPherson (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

File:BeggarsBanquetLP.jpg[edit]

The only way to monitor this would be to put both the image and the article Beggars Banquet on your watch-list. One of the reasons that the orphan notification is in place is to catch these instances of removal/vandalism - so keeping those two pages on the watch list would hopefully give you the heads-up that the image was removed. P.s. I've undone the deletion tag on the image page. Skier Dude (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Sssoul...[edit]

Long time no type. I've finally got some free time from school (and life) and I've been working on some album pages for the Stones. Just wondering if you'd keep an eye on the work and make sure it's in line with regs or even if it reads like a decent piece of writing. You working on anything specific that needs help? I was thinking that the Stones' musical evolution section (which never developed like I had hoped) is a major project that would boost the page's credibility considerably. Thanks and good work on all these pages you work on. Stan weller (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Little Richard Vandalism[edit]

Do you think that the regular, repeated vandalism might warrant a request to protect the LR article? I really appreciate your watchful eye on the article. You catch the vandals quick - usually beofre I do.--Smoovedogg (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

you can request page protection at WP:RPP, but the page probably won't be protected unless the vandalism becomes a lot more frequent/persistent than it is now. Sssoul (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thanks, kindly, for the info. we'll see how things go - if the disruptions continue and increase in frequency. i appreciate you.--Smoovedogg (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Stones[edit]

Hi Sssoul, I noticed someone began an article for The Dirty Mac. I always thought that was just a "one-off" conglomeration of people playing at the Rolling Stones Circus. Anyway, since it's an article, and listed on the page for John Lennon, I added it (reluctantly, really,) to the infobox on the page for Keith Richards. If it belongs there, it probably merits comment in the section about Keith playing bass guitar in his section dedicated to that instrument, too. I'm not really involved in the Stones articles currently as much as I'd like to be, and thought you the best person to mention this stuff to. I did upload another photo of Keith at the mic on his page and another of Ronnie Wood playing with the Stones to his page. Neither is of great quality, but both serve their purpose at the size they are. Lately I've been focusing on the Wikignome stuff I do, and editing Derek Trucks, and Rory Gallagher, (and it looks like I'll have to return to Cat Stevens, as it may easily lose it's GA ranking). Gallagher's article could use help... the best kept secret in Rock and Roll! So could Cat Stevens if you want a change of pace now and then, (hint!). Thanks for your time. If you respond, please do so on my talk page. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Dirty Mac[edit]

Thanks for your answer. I've found two books, one partly authored by Jools Holland, The Rolling Stones A Life on the Road, and another, Rolling Stone Interviews by Jann Wenner (who else?) both of which appear to be good reliable sources for several articles. The first book is mainly photos, but is so huge it has a lot of text as well, and touches on the Mick Taylor era of the Rolling Stones, and has a lot of useful quotes and such. The second book has interviews in chapters, one from Pete Townshend, about The Who, and another from Mick Jagger. They were easily found in a teeny little library a 5 minute walk from my house, so I'd assume you might find them anyway. However, being an "article rescue" type, the Rory Gallagher article is really important to me now. I'm in the States now, and nobody here seems to know who he even was, although his dinky little page continues to get more hits than many other favourites of mine! If you have any guitar articles, or find any good sources about him other than those I put on his talk page, or the books written by him by his bassist, Gerry McAvoy, or brother, Donal Gallagher, it would really help. I mentioned the Dirty Mac in particular b/c I recall Richards playing bass, and his personal article has a section about him playing bass, and I think a lot of these fans editors ;) would see that, first on You Tube and go putting it in places where it really doesn't belong!

I knew the Cat Stevens article wasn't up to GA specs some time ago, sorry for asking- I just dread returning back to cover his youth! I wasn't around then! Ah well. Thanks! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

In the studio[edit]

Sssoul, Are you familiar with the (online) radio programme called In the Studio with Redbeard? One day I simply bumped into it as a source, and it is interesting listening, and I wrote him from the website to ask if the interviews (that week, it was a Pete Townshend interview) would remain on the website for a while or be removed. Since I hadn't seen anything about Mick Taylor or some others, I wrote him to ask about it, and here is his response:

Ah, Leah --Season's greetings , sainted one ! You're timing on ex-Rolling Stones guitarist Mick Taylor is uncanny . He was featured in last week's In The Studio #1120 Let It Bleed 40th anniversary radio show , so that's it at the very top of the media player on the home page . Knock yourself out ... but please link us with any quotes , credits,etc.
I have a good amount of material from the late Who bass player John Entwistle , but I just realized that none of it is on the website . Coincidentally I have had a request by music author Richie Unterberger to provide the same material for his upcoming book on The Who , so I'll see about working out something for everybody after the holidays ..
I'm a huge Rory Gallagher fan, even hung with him backstage in Memphis one night , but he was reluctant to be formally interviewed .. The real bluesmen were/are pretty much a hard-scrabble bunch , fairly suspicious of being manipulated & ripped off , & for good reason .. Rory always was much more popular in Europe than the States , so check your sources there .
And all I have on Cat Stevens is some interesting anecdotal stories about him from Al Stewart . They came up together in the same London coffee-house music scene & were rivals for the limelight... & the Cat won .
Redbeard
http://www.inthestudio.net

If you go online, Sssoul, you will find some interviews which are impeccable with at least the artists I listened to some time ago (maybe 6 months). It really is worth checking out. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

ENGVAR in Pop music[edit]

Re: Pop music. My mistake. I thought I had seen British English usage elsewhere in the article. I must have been hallucinating. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Watts[edit]

I saw the discussion, but no one's cited a source. As a general principal, categories should back up cited article text. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

"Dead In The Studio"[edit]

You know, I guess I never really thought of it like that before. Sure, the term "live" when concerning "concert" recordings is commonly accepted and understood in the lexicon. but "dead" recordings are... oh, wait! I get it now! "Dead" because they weren't "live" recordings?! Hahaaahaaa!! Hooohoohooo!! Hysterical! (work on your material, kid)... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 10:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Might be helpful for the Stones' articles[edit]

Hi Sssoul, this clip showed up on You Tube but has some good information. Perhaps by contacting the poster, the source can be found and used in at least one Rolling Stones article. At the least, please check it out, it's quite informative!: "Keith Richards talks about the Blues" great commentary from Bill Wyman and Keith Richards. I love the comment about how Willie Dixon's "Little Red Rooster" was perhaps the only time a blues song made it to #1 on the chart. Mentions of John Lee Hooker, and more. Also, the DJ, "Redbeard"'s global radio interview show (which is also online) In the Studio just interviewed Mick Taylor and Wyman, regarding the anniversary of Let It Bleed. Just go to the link at the bottom of that page, and look it up! (He's also asked me to help clean up his article as he intended to do it himself, which is kind of iffy, so I'll have to ask an Admin about that.. but he knows the rules.. and is good at what he does, even if it's sort of "old school" Casey Kasem sort of approach to his interviews.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Award[edit]

I think you deserve this...

Team Barnstar.png The Teamwork Barnstar
I award Sssoul this barnstar for working with others to improve the Pete Townshend article and reach a consensus on its content. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones discography[edit]

Hi Sssoul, can you tell me anything about these three compilation albums which are red-linked: In Concert (1982), Story of The Stones (1982) and Les Annees Stones 1 (1989)? I found on Discogs that Story of The Stones was released by K-Tel in the UK back in 1982. This contradicts the Decca label shown in the discography. Best, --Discographer (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The French titled album was released on London Records. What about In Concert? Is this album maybe mixed up with either Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out! or "Still Life"? Best, --Discographer (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
i have no idea what those might be referring to – i'm not a discographic-rarities sort of sssoul. Sssoul (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Popmusic‎[edit]

A belated thanks for your previous help (and you will understand why it is belated). I wonder if you could cast your eye over a problem that has arisen with edits from an IP user (talk), at the above article and may be related in some way to comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dance-pop. There may be some reasonable point being made here, but to be honest I cannot understand it. There is always the chance that it might be a little clearer to you, or that you might be able to suggest useful resolution. Thanks again.--SabreBD (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

i have tried and failed to follow what the IP is talking about. it seems to boil down to a WP:WAX-type argument, which won't fly; maybe pointing that out to him/her will at least coax him/her to clarify what s/he's trying to say? if i think of anything more constructive i'll let you know. Sssoul (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look, at least I know it is not just me. I will do as you advise and try to get some clarification. Your efforts and advice are always appreciated.--SabreBD (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Who during Superbowl[edit]

Sssoul, thank you for improving my add of Townsend & The Who performance to the SuperBowl! Best, Chuck Stack, aka CStack3 CStack3 (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Mick Taylor and doing album pages[edit]

Sssoul, in the discography for Mick Taylor, there is a "album" listed, called let's get Stoned. The fact that the page is so often vandalized, led me to wonder if this listed album in the discography - doesn't begin with a captiol letter in the title, which I never heard of, is legitimate. Do you know?
Also, can you help find me two or three people good with discographies. I know how to add good information, and cover sleeves to vinyl album and 7" 45rpm singles. I'm having the hardest time. I want to start album and song pages for musicians who have missing album info, including specifically:

  1. B.B. King's London Sessions including lots of notable other musicians including:
  2. Rory Gallagher, a huge blues & blues rock performer, esp. with BB King, all his live albums and Live at Montreaux, involving a bunch of other very impostant performers
  3. Cat Stevens, his early songs and albums -Tvoz and I worked hard for it's GA-Ranking, which was just lost.
  4. Charlie Watts' solo efforts..

I just want to know, in cases that go back to say, 1980, where to find ratings, and more? I just need someone to teach me just showing how to create one album page, even just to Start-level, and the resulting red marks from discographies all over the place would be losing numerous led marks, as so many other musicians have collaborated on the albums I'd like to tackle! Please, help me find a couple "teachers" so I might continue to improve some of these artists' articles!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Leahtwosaints, i reckon you need to ask someone who works on discographies - i don't. maybe User:Discographer will be able to help, or will know someone who can? (i don't know him/her myself - s/he just asked me a discography-related question once.) Sssoul (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Pop music[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Sssoul. You have new messages at Sabrebd's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Apologies that this is taking me so long, but I am very busy in real life and have managed to get invovled in an editing dispute at Gothic (term) which is absorbing my time. I hope to grab some focused time at the weekend.--SabreBD (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you help with this?[edit]

Ssoul- the listing of the Rolling Stones single, "Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby, Standing in the Shadow?" - the B-side of the song is "Who's Driving Your Plane?"-- but no song page has been made for it yet. I had a (rare) image of the B-side single and sleeve and uploaded it, since foolishly, I planned to figure out how to attach the B-side song cover to the bottom side of the infobox of "Have You Seen Your Mother...", (something common on the other song pages, but which I've never tried before) I uploaded it here: [1] I keep hoping someone will teach me to do a decent new song (or new album) page.. but as you can see a bot just gave me a few days to use the uploaded "fair use" single cover, and I accidentally sliced my fingers on my right hand, got stiches -and have a splint on my right index finger, typing is near impossible now, added to my ignorance of song pages. I don't know who else might help with this. I don't know editors here, so since this image is hard to come by, would you please help adding it to "Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby, Standing in the Shadow?", or else begin a song page for "Who's Driving Your Plane?"? It's taking me forever now just to type this!

Additionally, if you (or anyone you can find) would just teach me, there is so much I could contribute by means of starting some album pages and song articles. Same goes for discographies. I'm just taught once to properly go about a discography-- (I am especially anxious about Rory Gallagher- the discography portion is a mess- a separate discography page was created for his solo albums released while he was alive, but some of the albums never had article pages created, including -posthumous complations and significantly, a lot of collaborations with artists including Muddy Waters, Jack Bruce, and others, whose own discographies would likewise benefit if I knew where to look to create album articles-- Mick Taylor, Bill Wyman, and Charlie Watts all could likewise benefit. If I could just learn the places to find sources -names of songs with credits and time length, personnel.. I could at least get stubs begun. Please think about that, aside from getting photos, and wikignome things I do actually edit a few musicians' articles, (Derek Trucks, Cat Stevens, etc.) and am especially anxious about Rory Gallagher.

Last, I uploaded a lot of photos to Wikimedia Commons a couple of days ago, including some early Rolling Stones pics-- my username is the same there as it is here and I now keep a list of over 375 uploaded photos under a tiny gallery of a few favorites on my Wikipedia userpage in case you want to look for any photos there- over 375 pics. Mick Jagger's article has so little text, a couple are on the 1972 tour article, one each: Mick Taylor, Ron Wood, and another on Jagger/Richards (as the two are sharing a microphone and it's such a great shot). There's one last exceptional photo of Taylor and Richards from an entire soundboard photo but would prefer if you email me.. it's outstanding, but I think you should take a look at it before I even consider trying to upload it under "fair use", since it's not your typical find. Would you do that? My email is active. I'll have a look to try to figure out how to add a second image to that song I first mentioned above, but all this typing has been tough! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WHOOPS! Sorry about asking twice about discographies, I didn't get an answer on My talk page so didn' see your reply till now... BUT, it would really help if someone can assist in showing me how to create an album page properly. The more pressing problem of using that image of the record sleeve I just uploaded needing placement however, still stands!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
    • ^ a b c J. Simpson and E. Weiner, Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), cf pop.
    • ^ S. Frith, "Pop Music" in S. Frith, W. Stray and J. Street, The Cambridge Companion to Pop and Rock (Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 93-108.
    • ^ T. Warner, Pop music: technology and creativity: Trevor Horn and the digital revolution (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), p. 3.
    • ^ R. Serge Denisoff, and William L. Schurk, Tarnished gold: the record industry revisited (Transaction Publishers, 3rd edn., 1986), pp. 2-3.