This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sabrebd. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Many thanks. Much appreciated. Experience suggest that I won't be able to see minor errors for a few weeks and another set of fresh eyes is very useful.--SabreBD (talk)16:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I've completed basic copy editing throughout the article. A few of your sentences are still pretty long and could possibly be broken down a bit more. I suggest that the section on Universities could be somewhat reduced by cutting some of the biographical details and concentrating on important contributions to the Renaissance. Maybe you could also add something at the end of the article about aspects of the Scottish Renaissance which have been assessed as having a lasting effect (in Scotland and in Britain as a whole) -- if this is not too difficult to source. Otherwise you have done an excellent job and, in my opinion, not much more is needed for a GA. In line with your suggestion at the top of this page, these comments might be better placed on the article's talk page but I thought I should convey them to you first. - Ipigott (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for all that effort, I really appreciate it and for the really good advice, which will speed up moving to GA a great deal. I will probably implement them over the weekend if possible. Don't worry about the statement about what belongs on article talkpage: that is not for helpful comments like yours, but to stop editors coming here with long arguments about why I changed their unsourced OR. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to work, as they probably never read it.--SabreBD (talk)10:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for advising where the image was, I had difficulties finding it. I have created template for use. And you are the first recipient. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi, I put all my hours of hard work back. Please tell me what's wrong with it and I will correct it. I will spend today improving the page as I'd run out of time yesterday. Thank you. Dave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titanis Walleri (talk • contribs) 10:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salman Aditya (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.
Your views to this article again would be appreciated seeing as you contributed to the discussion last time, when it was nominated for deletion in July 2010 and consequently deleted. Thanks. Hiddenstranger (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Horror story
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Not saying the Wonky pop contruct / marketing strategy is derived from Synth pop but most definately associated with it - you only have to check the artists involved in it i.e. the Wonky pop tours.It's definately part of the 21st century revival if you like that or not - it's a fact / cannot be disputed.I'm only passing on what has happened / the truth.Whether or not a Wonky pop backlash has happened or not doesn't come into it.Wonky pop is still actually mentioned in music press articles, so it is still relevent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scratchy7929 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
How the hell is it vandalism.There's an obvious link between synth-pop & wonky pop.It sound's like you don't like the connection between wonky pop & these artist's.Nobody made them make " what the BBC called "quirky, catchy and credible pop", rooted in the eccentric side of 1980s pop music ".Someone else posted this on the bottom of the wonky pop article as well - " Wonky Pop was credited with causing a shift in popular musical tastes from male-driven guitar acts to female-driven 1980s style pop music seen in the synthpop revival of the later 2000s "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandpopfeatures/5978573/La-Roux-Lady-Gaga-Mika-Little-Boots-the-80s-are-back.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scratchy7929 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about vandalism. Please stop posting this on my talkpage when it belongs on the article talkpage.--SabreBD (talk)15:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keith Hinchliffe link on Albion Band page
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Really can't understand why a link to my website from my name in the Albion Band article is any less relevant than those to other musicians. Still, at least you haven't corrected my correction of the misspelling of my name.
Keith Hinchliffe — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeithHHH (talk • contribs) 20:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Sabrebd I just noticed you're here with the edit to Zeppelin you just made. I just checked Sabbath's website and posted the link here: Ward's removal from offical Sabbath's site I think it's going to be a busy day for the Sabbath page. Just a FYI poke and to say Hello Mlpearc (powwow) 14:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks and for all the hard work you put in, particularly on what are often thankless task like categories - I really appreciate it.--SabreBD (talk)09:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Input to discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your input is welcome on two discussions which may be of interest.
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
We agree that it is the same subculture and we include the topic "Outside UK" or disagree and we change the name of this article is "rocker biker subculture" and in another article with the name: "rocker subculture" to subculture found in many countries. This is the most informative and solves this mess. There is no study that considers the same subculture or two subcultures of the same name. This is complicated.
The rocker subculture is just a biker subculture in the United Kingdom, Japan and Australia, and not in other countries. I did much research to know that. I think, the subculture is the same, but in these three countries is a subculture centered on motorcycles and classic rock and all other countries is focused on rock music in general and not focused on motorcycles. But rocker is rocker. Wisehelp (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
You deleted other peoples comments from an article talkpage. This is usually treated as vandalism. What is more, you had already been warned not to do this in a previous message on your talkpage.--SabreBD (talk)17:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 June 2012
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Congratulations on the GA - don't worry the bot will pick this up and deliver to WP:SCO in due course - but pictures are not on the system as yet. BenMacDui11:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. Noticed the job you did on the Led Zeppelin montage in the infobox, wondering if you could do a similar job in the Queen article. There was an excellent image uploaded a couple of days ago but unfortunately it was a copyvio. If you could upload a good image and then do something simlar that would be great. A montage from the mid 1970s would be ideal. Cheers.Chie one (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I will see what I can do. The hard part is finding the copyright free images from the right period.--SabreBD (talk)17:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
File:Queen 1976.JPGDo you know if this one has ever been on the page? It has a pretty extensive claim of no copyright. It is so good it might actually be better than a montage, but it could form the basis of a black and white one.--SabreBD (talk)23:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 June 2012
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for your review of Gisborough Priory - I'm going to be away from my computer for a couple of days so there'll be a short delay before I can finish addressing the issues you've raised. Prioryman (talk) 06:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
You are welcome. I still have the rest of the list of criteria to go through, although I think most of the latter part will be a formality, which I was hoping to do by the end of the weekend. I will leave it open when I have finished, rather than on hold, since that puts a timelimit on changes.--SabreBD (talk)08:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
I removed a number of talk topics on the wikipedia page for Trip Hop which you reverted. My justification for removing these particular topics was that they are outdated - that is they were created when the article was very different. They deal with sections and quotes that are no longer there, and with issues that have since been resolved or rendered redundant. It was mainly to 'clean up' the talk page so those issues and topics of discussion still relevant to the article were the only ones left.
If you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia it is best not to make such drastic edits. Old discussions are not just dumped from article talkpages, but archived in case they need to be referred to. You might find WP:TALKPAGE useful for seeing how these things should work.--SabreBD (talk)22:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Paul McCartney FAC
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry but, I'm not a vandal. This article has serious issues going back to it's inception.
Look at this revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=House_of_Stuart&diff=prev&oldid=172889972 and tell me it isn't sad that this article about the House of Stuart had someone add a revision with a reference TELLING readers that the source is dubious? Reference #9 actually says it "may be unreliable". This article needs LOTS of work. Even if I register and try to help, it needs to be tagged correctly so that even non-registered users can edit and assist. It's not locked, and even if it was, it's a badly sourced article. Before your wholesale revert my revisions, please look at EACH section. I didn't just tag the top, I added templates for each section, hoping to get HELP for this article. I'm not a vandal, or someone trying to hurt. It needs WORK. No one should delude themselves. This article is pretty bad. Sorry about the talk page, if people think this article deserves a C, well, so be it. 98.71.195.229 (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC) edited98.71.195.229 (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC) re-edited98.71.195.229 (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Please note that I have not accused you of vandalism and I am assuming good faith here. I also wouldn't disagree with you that the article needs more and better sources. However, there is a way of doing these things. Ratings in projects are for members of those projects to determine. I am taking it that you are not a member, since by now I expect you would have told me if you were. So you should not be adjusting those ratings, although you can go request reassessments at the project pages. As for the tagging: it is fine to do this, but unwise to carry over these from another page. Putting dates that are five years old could be seen as disingenuous as tags that are of long standing are often an argument for deletion. As it happens I have some expertise in this area, so I will look at improving the article when I find time.--SabreBD (talk)07:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 July 2012
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I've just been trawling through the FACs and saw yours. You said "I am nominating this for featured article because the previous nomination fell through the grill. Solutions were attempted to all the issues raised, but commentators did not respond to those solutions, so I am unaware of any major outstanding issues." I've noticed that most issues raised at the FAC page don't seem to have been tackled, and you haven't made responses on the FAC page to most of them. FWIW, i suggest you strike up a discussion there if you don't agree with proposals etc, otherwise this one is going to fall through the grill too. At the moment it doesn't look like you're that interested. I haven't been involved in this particular one; just thought I'd post my thoughts... hamiltonstone (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for those comments. The truth is that I was pretty demoralised by the negative tone and repetition of the first comments and have been struggling to find the enthusiasm to tackle this. I will see what I can summon up over the weekend.--SabreBD (talk)16:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The tone at FAC is always critical, but that doesn't necessarily mean negative. Reviewers also seem very thin on the ground at the moment there - so try to hang on to the ones you've got! :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I know reviewers may be in short supply, but there are ways of phrasing things that encourage participation. A presumption of failure is not really one of them. It will probably be a long time before I engage with the process again. I much prefer GA which tends to be about finding a way to progress an article.--SabreBD (talk)08:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 July 2012
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Re: your comments at Talk:Roman Empire. I've seen several GA rankings in the last few months that puzzle me. I always understood GA to mean "exemplary; all articles should aspire to this level of quality." Increasingly, it seems to mean cosmetically 'perfected' (elaborate citation templates, copyediting by rote), without thorough vetting of content. Rarely are project members alerted to a GA review for articles within their scope; for instance, I don't think anyone informed the Classical Greece & Rome project that Roman Empire was under GA review. I think it should be required that the related projects be notified before a GA is awarded.
One of the most important criteria for a GA is whether there are content gaps. Recognizing content gaps requires a thorough knowledge of the topic, but when I've objected to a B or GA rating on that basis, people tend to get really huffy, like you're being Miss Smartypants.
Didn't want to go off into a generalized digression at Talk:Roman Empire. Just wanted to support your effort to make a GA meaningful. And if there's a general discussion somewhere about the review process, please alert me so I can participate. Thanks, Cynwolfe (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I totally agree with you that content is much more important than cosmetics. This is not to say that those things shouldn't be right too, but they are more advisory. Coverage and quality are clearly paramount. I considered reviewing this article, but the reason I didn't is that my knowledge of the topic is about twenty years out of date and it would have been a lot of work to get up to speed to be able to determine whether the sources and debates were balanced and up to date. In the event it seems to have got a review that didn't attempt to look at those things and even some of the really obvious ones.
I am going to take a look through the archives and see if the problems have been spotted before. I will let you know if I start a general discussion. In any case, I think I may take Roman Empire to a community review, since there appears to be disagreement about the status.--SabreBD (talk)15:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the note; the apology was considerate but entirely unnecessary. More eyes on the page can only help. I'm already re-writing one of the sections, and have no problem joining the community review discussion with specifics, rather than the brief, vague comments I made at the article talk-page. It'll take me some time to formulate my thoughts - and I write very slowly these days... Haploidavey (talk) 10:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 August 2012
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Sabrebd, I see you have contributed a little bit to Electronic rock. Frankly, I feel this article has major issues. It's ostensibly about a genre of music (one which I think is tenuous, but we'll set that aside for the moment), but it's mostly about talking about any form of rock music with electronic instruments in it. And that's not really a topic you can make an article about. This is especially problematic as I see people adding this article to artist/song/genre fields. Either the article needs to be about a properly described genre and excise all the irrelevent material about the history of electronic instruments, or it needs to focus solely on the role of electronic instruments in rock music as described by intensive research on the subject, instead of name-checking every band that has used a synth. What are your thoughts? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not really sure how to resolve this one. The article deliberately does not have a genre infobox for this very reason, but it doesn't seem to stop editors adding this to band articles as if it were a genre. I will go and have a look for sources dealing with electronic rock. If that fails perhaps we should go down the "instruments in..." route, which may involve a name change and redirect.--SabreBD (talk)10:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm tempted to remove all the singular mentions of bands and their myriad release that don't have to do with the narrative of the "genre" as a whole (something I feel has become a problem with genre articles lately, and something I conspicuously avoid in Grunge, which I rewrote for a Featured Article Review a few years back). I think that should be as good a start as any. Let me know what sources look legit, and which look miscontrued or are being used to synthesize an inaccurate description of this topic. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
You contributed to Synthpop, I see. Bad news: that Piero Scaruffi source can't be used, as it's self-published (iUniverse merely facillitates self-publishing). He kind of has a reputation on Wiki for people trying to cite him and us having to periodically explain why he's not considered a reliable source. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The GA review has now been open for a week. Usually, nominators are given 7 days to address the reviewers comments; while that rule is not set in stone, I think we need to see some action fairly quickly if this is to pass. And to be honest, I don't think there is much that needs doing. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Sabrebd,
Thanks for your feedback. Yes, most of my remarks refer to the Heart Discography. Sorry, but I feel it leaves much to be desired, although it is pretty awsome as it is. As a HUGE Heart fan since buying Dreamboat Annie when released and collecting anything I can lay my hands on I felt I should indicate some necessary (IMHO) changes rather than starting to mess everything up being inexperienced in Wikipedia.
I hope it woll contribute to an even better webpage.
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Since I know that you edit the areas in question, I would like to point you to a open RfC that I think your opinion would be helpful I honestly do not think this is considered canvassing, I hope. Thanx Mlpearc (powwow) 17:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 September 2012
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!
Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).
If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We tried to use Wikipedia email to deliver your account access information but you either did not provide an email address in your preferences or had it set up not to receive messages from other editors. You can change both on the first page of Special:Preferences. To fix the situation directly or to let me know you've changed your preferences, just email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers, Ocaasi05:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Stephen Hopkins
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi; haven't heard from you in eight days, and wonder if there's anything I should be doing with the Hopkins article to move it along. The tag says it's awaiting improvements, but I don't have anything to do yet. May I help look anything up, or quote any material from non-online sourcing? Let me know what I can do to get things moving. Many thanks.Sarnold17 (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. As luck would have it I have been without the internet for the last week. I am just grabbing a few minutes at work to check mail. Hopefully normal service will be resumed this evening and I will get back to you with some detailed advice. Thanks.--SabreBD (talk)12:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I am back in the early twentieth century and no longer have to make my own entertainment with some crayons and paper. I have passed the article as I think the few issues raised are really advisory under the criteria. It is a very good piece of work. Perhaps you want to get a copy edit and possibly peer review before going to FA, but it should go there at some point. Well done.--SabreBD (talk)18:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Beatles RfC
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll here, to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. ~ GabeMc(talk|contribs)02:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 September 2012
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, Sabrebd.
I've read your terms and conditions and I have decided to post here. I refer to your comment on the 'talk' page of the article "Trip-Hop", in which you consider merging the page.
I would ask you to leave this page un-merged. The reason is that greater clarity is maintained by Trip-Hop having its own page. The page is an absolute mess, ridiculously Bristol-centric in content and hugely contentious but it nevertheless stands as a very useful starting point.
Briefly, my overall conclusion is that the whole post-1975 UK music scene is woefully under-recorded and needs so much work done to bring it up to a new level of multiple and competent WP articles. However, the task is a long and thankless one and merging the few 'error-filled' articles that do exist would probably only further injure what is currently a very ill patient.
I speak as someone who admires your tenacity and effort. We share interests. However, so little is currently written up of so much UK music history that we'd surely best preserve those ruins that exist.--Loop Withers (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 01 October 2012
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I've picked up the GA review for the subject article, and my recommendations are rather lengthy. I need you to take a look at what I've done so far, and for you to let me know if I'm being too picky and going overboard on the recommendations. I'd like to hear from you before I go any further with the review. Thanks.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks for taking this on. I will try to have a look over. Unfortunately I am very busy in the real world just at the moment, so it may take me a while to get around to major changes.--SabreBD (talk)20:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi again; I've completed my comments for the GA review, and have put the article on hold. Recognising that my comments are rather extensive, and that you are currently busy, I've allowed a two week period (vice one week) for changes. I now have a big stake in this article, and am interested in resolving the issues with you. Several of them may turn out to be non-issues. Anyway, I will follow your edits as they are made.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
OK thanks. I am pretty much down to reverting a bit of vandalism at the moment and wont have much time this weekend, but hopefully I will have a bit more time the weekend after to seriously look at this.--SabreBD (talk)06:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi again; it's been two weeks now, and there hasn't been any activity on this article. Since we're really stretching the timeline here, I'd like to just fail the article, then when you can get to it, you can put it back up for GA status, and I'll pick it up then, or else you can let someone else pick it up. It just shouldn't sit in the queue without action for so long. Thanks.Sarnold17 (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I think that is probably best. Unfortunately I had to work again at the weekend and may have to do so again. I will beare in mind you comments and try to implement them before I put it up again, so your efforts wont be wasted. Thanks again.--SabreBD (talk)16:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 October 2012
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Crunkcore, Kesha". Thank you! (Sorry, the bot would have notified you, but I initially made a formatting mistake when typing your name.)--¿3family6contribs21:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 October 2012
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. Don't know if you've been following our friend on the talk page there, but what do you think about my suggestion to add a few words to the introduction of that article? Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Yep, its also an issue on Garage rock, as you may know. I am fine with your suggestion and will chip in to say so. All the best.--SabreBD (talk)16:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Roman Empire
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Sabrebd. The GA reassessment of Roman Empire is a little different than most of the others I see go through WP:GAR. The article was basically rewriten over the review period. I don't think anyone is complaining about the improvement in quality and there seems to be no edit wars going on so I am not concerned about stability. The trouble is that this version of the article is basically unreviewed. However the amount of work that has gone on is impressive and the two issues brought up at the reassessment page have been addressed. I have read through it and even tried to contribute and as far as I can tell there are no obvious faults that disqualify it from meeting the GA criteria (I don't know a lot about the Roman Empire though). Anyway I basically wanted to close it as it has been open for over two months now and my gut says keep. However I thought that I would give you an opportunity to respond on the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Roman Empire/1 page first if you had any further concerns (in case you missed the note I left there). I have also dropped a note with Majoreditor (talk·contribs). AIRcorn(talk)03:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Aircorn. I did miss the update to the review page, so many thanks for this. I have no objection to closer. It is unusual, but a very positive solution. Thanks again for your part in this.--SabreBD (talk)07:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Please restore my improvements to heading of "garage rock"
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Dear Sabrebd:
I implore you to please restore the improvements I made to the heading of "Garage Rock." I went into detail about why I made these changes in a thread that somebody else had started ("Not enough detail") in the Garage Rock talk section. This individual and others complained that the article is too brief for a phenominon of the degree of size, scope, and historical importance of garage rock. We are dealing with the largest popular grass-roots rock movement in histrory, at the time of the largest youth generation' coming of age, during the apex of the golden era of rock, yet the subject is being treated as something small. Please read the comments by myself and others in that section. I pointed out that a good way to improve the article would be to have a better and more richly-worded heading. The heading , as it stands, is almost anemic. Let me explain (once again) the rationale of my changes:
I made necessary additions to the heading of the Garage Rock article, which better serve the proportions of the genre which the article addresses. I added mention of the "numerous bands," because this is not only factual, but essential to unerstanding the phenominon of garage rock craze that swept the country (and other countries) during this period. I added the reference to "other countries" (in parenthesis), because the phenominon, though most prevelent in North America, also took place in other countries, such as Sweden, Denmark, Itlay, Peru, Japan, etc., as well as having a close relationship with many bands in the UK (though these are more commonly referred to as "British Invasion," and/or "Freakbeat, however thare are certain bands, such as The Troggs or The Renegades that have been commonly referred to as "garage"). Some of the bands in the Wiki list of garage bands come form other countries--i.e. the ones who have been characterized as "garage." I added mention that garage rock "along with the British Invasion and folk rock, helped define the guitar rock sound of the mid-60s," because this is, not only true, but also essential to our understanding of it. I added "early half" to the description about the critics in the 70s, beacuse, without it, the statement is confusing. This addition makes the statement, not only more precise, factually speaking, but more clear. I put the phrase "has become" in the last sentence, because it is more factual. The genre has not always been predominantly referred to as "garage rock." In the early to mid seventies it was more commonly referred to as "punk rock," only sometimes as "garage..." The term "garage band" was popularly used for quite some time, but has now been shifted, in the public mind, to refer to a brand of software (it seems that every word used to describe garage rock ends up getting taken by someone else!). I made some other slight changes in wording, as to make smoother, clearer transitions, but I tried to keep as much of the earlier text as possible. I have tried to respect the contributions of earler editors. My changes and additions are merely refinements and improvements, and do not constitute an overhaul. However, there remains a pressing need for greater expansion of other sections of the article, as well as possible additions of new sections, considering the vastness and importance of this topic.
I ask you to please retore the improvements I made. They have made the article stronger, more informantive, more factual, and more appealing. I think our concern should be what is best for the article. I worked very hard on crafting out these improvements, and I cannot understand why they have been taken away. I genuinely tried to avoid some of the mistakes of some of my prior changes, and I was almost certain that you would back me up this time around. I wish that you would accept me as a legitimate editor (I do not want to be a nuisance or intruder). I am a very thoughtful person. I am trying to be a good editor and do things in a responsible way. The subject of garage rock is something I have quite a bit of knowledge on and deep interest in. I know that I have pressed a few issues lately, but I want it for the best. I acknowlege that you have made a couple of descisions in favor of my ideas, so I am grateful. Please utilize me as a positive resource.
Sincerly,
Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
P.S.
I have also expressed the same concerns to Ghmyrtle. Can the two of you consider restoring my improvements--and come to see me as a partner in building a better article?
Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Dear Sabrebd:
Thanks for explaining your reasons. Perhaps you could help me source the references in the article and correct any errors (grammatical or otherwise) in my revision of the heading, then you could restore it (albeit in corrected form). Please read again my comments above. I should be easy to reference any disussion of historical importance, because garage rock was by far the largest grass roots movement ever in the history of rock, in terms of the number of bands and people invoved. It probably affected every neighborhood in the country. I probably should have made a seperate section in talk rather than putting the comments into this thread. But, as it stands, the article remains way too short for a topic of this breadth, but expanding it is going to take time and the effort of several editors. Perhaps we can all make this a collective effort. Much thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 November 2012
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scotland in the Early Modern Era, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Holyrood and Plaid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. I will have to think about it as my previous experiences with the process have not been good, but perhaps doing it with someone helpful and informed would compensate for that. I will try to find the last attempt and see what might have to be done and get back to you. All the best.--SabreBD (talk)21:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 03 December 2012
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I use a Sony VAIO notebook which has a 17" screen, and having viewed United Kingdom on a conventional 4X3 set-up,
I can understand what you state in your edit summary this morning. It does seem a shame though, if the image cannot be included within the article. Any thoughts? Cheers! – – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard09:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
It is a bit of a shame to lose the picture. I will see if I can lever it in somewhere, when I get hold of the pc later today. If not I guess the only course is to argue for a substitution on the talkpage.--SabreBD (talk)10:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Sabred,
You have made four three reversions in the last 24 hours (you probably forgot about the one you made last night). Please reinstate the image of Westminster Abbey in the article United Kingdom and discuss on the talk page. I have already opened the discussion - it is a continuation of the discusion that was started last night when you deleted the picture of the London skyline. Martinvl (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
That discussion started four days ago, not last night. Also for the record, I have made three changes in 24 hours, but not three reversions, since clearly at least one of them was a tidy up, the second removed a long-standing picture in an attempt to accommodate another's edit (if I had removed the table it would be a reversion). I count one reversion of other people's work, so I do not think you need to be suggesting I keep an eye on the 3RR. Notwithstanding I am happy to join the discussion as always, if given a little time.--SabreBD (talk)23:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Architecture of Scotland in the Roman era, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balloch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You had a point about removing the article I added to rock music. I thought someone could do a better job of working it in. I tried instead here, as the "Characteristics" section had a lot about the musical aspects but little about the lyrical. Dan56 (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 December 2012
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi again. Are you still willing to take Led Zeppelin to WP:FAC? By the way, how many Led Zeppelin or LZ-related books do you own? I seriously think the History section can be expanded. I would love consumatting the article but unfortunately the only LZ book I own is When Giants Walked the Earth by Mick Wall. Plant's Strider (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I have the three major biographies. Exactly which bits of the history section do you think need expanding. I have to admit I thought it was about the right length.--SabreBD (talk)07:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Let me explain. The article is definitely well-written, but the history section is... perfunctory. Add as much info as you can and then I'll run a major copy-edit of the article. Plant's Strider (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 January 2013
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glorious Revolution in Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whigs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Mlpearc (powwow) 14:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
; see Talk:British rhythm and blues for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
