User talk:Sabrebd/Autoarchive 8

This is an archive of past discussions with 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.

On 5 June 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Estate houses in Scotland, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that private estate houses in Scotland originate from extensive building and rebuilding of royal palaces, probably starting under James III? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Estate houses in Scotland. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to coordinate discussion on criteria for inclusion, on the article talk page. You may like to contribute. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scottish literature in the nineteenth century, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whig (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article New York Dolls (album)? If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Would you like to weigh in on this discussion on whether Arena rock constitutes a genre or not? If not, feel free to ignore this message. Thanks! Johnny338 (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. :-) Bishonen | talk 10:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC).

You get extra points for the humour and the irony.--SabreBD (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, did you know there's actually a User:Department of Redundancy Department, lol? A checkuser and oversighter. Now editing as User:DoRD. Bishonen | talk 16:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC).

Hi Sabrebd, if you have a moment, could you swing past Picts and add your tuppence worth to the current discussion? Cheers! Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Will do.--SabreBD (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Music of Scotland in the nineteenth century, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Strathspey (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The article Scottish religion in the seventeenth century you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Scottish religion in the seventeenth century for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello again! Would you like to comment on this discussion regarding the issues at the Wagnerian rock page? If not, feel free to ignore this message. Thanks! Johnny338 (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Evangelical revival in Scotland, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Non-juror and Atonement (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The Australian rock article needs a lot of help. It covers a lot of breadth, but suffers form a severe lack of sourcing and sloppy writing. There does not appear to be any higher-level oversight on what aims to be a feature article. Due to the wide time period covered, it is going to be a big piece of work--yet there is so much potential for it to become a great article. I am glad to offer my assistance (I just added a well-sourced piece at the beginning of the "Second wave" section and am happy to do more, where I might have the knowledge), however this is going to take the efforts of a lot of people. I know that you probably are busy with a lot of other Wiki projects, but I think that this site needs the presence of seasoned and knowledgeable editors. Two people that would be ideal contributors are you and Ghmyrtle, because of your interest in music and expertise as editors--and, of course, any other knowledgeable editors who would be willing. You may want to see if there are any experienced Australian editors available who know music. We could bring this to the attention of the Wiki regional music project to enlist quality support. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Why did you revert my change on Heavy Metal? Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple is NOT Heavy Metal. False information.

If you think so, you're plainly ignorant......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinyarion (talk • contribs) 11:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sabrebd. Do you wish to check the prose or non-free media files in Megadeth, my FA nominee? The review page is here, so your input will be appreciated. If not interested, please write me back so that I know whether to contact another editor. All the best.--Retrohead (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Me again. Just to ask were you planning to review Megadeth, or should I contact someone else?--Retrohead (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have a pretty busy weekend planned. I might be able to take a look on Monday if that is any use.--SabreBD (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	This is to recognize all of your valuable assistance over the last year and a half, since I joined Wikipedia and for your tireless efforts to improve these articles. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I really appreciate it.--SabreBD (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sabre, I know you do some work on art-related articles. I was wondering whether you would consider doing a GA review on Iso Rae, which has been sitting at WP:GAN for two months now. I'm trying to wrap up my two outstanding projects before going on a break for a while, and Rae is one of those. I can't offer anything in the way of quid pro quo at the moment, but would happily look at any of your Scottish articles when i return toward the end of the year. Let me know either way - if you're not free, i'll ping another editor. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It is impossible to make a case like that without going in to detail at length. If I did not I would be accused of superficiality, ignoring historical accounts and indulging in polemics. Statements of belief without full explanation will not suffice, so there will be no heavily abridged version. If it is not clear enough, then I readily plead guilty to a lack of flair in writing. If people do not want to read more than a paragraph, then that is their choice and I accept it without criticism. If they find it wanting as an explanation of Bannockburn, then I accept that with equally good grace. People are welcome to dispute anything I have said they can prove to be inaccurate, or any questions I have put. There will only be one person who decides how much I write though and I assure you I will be that person. 2001perseus (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Please note I did not attempt to determine how much you write: I just pointed out that it won't work if you make the points too long or hard to find. Perhaps some paragraph breaks might also help your case, or even bullet points, to help the reader. You might find this link useful WP:TLDR.--SabreBD (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough Sabrebd. A skilled writer I most certainly am not, so no offence is taken at your suggestion for help with that. In fact I appreciate the thought. I do know what you mean about the length, but was more concerned about making statements with nothing to support them. Maybe I'll learn to do better. It's a long time since I've even written an essay and my worst habits have not improved in that time. It was literally the first time I have attempted to use this medium and in all honesty I am struggling with unfamiliarity on how it works or the correct way to use it. Hopefully that will improve over time too.2001perseus (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scottish education in the eighteenth century, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Haddington. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Could you weigh in on this discussion regarding a viewpoint by a critic/newspaper and how it's included in an article? Dan56 (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course, you could've easily added the ref, since it's a wikipage onto itself, making the Beatles page more complete and correct. But I added the ref. Hotcop2 (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure why you think it is my job to clean up after you. Also, you have added the reference in the wrong format for this Featured Article, which has an established style, so you may want to fix that.--SabreBD (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I care more about complete articles than wiki reference styles, so since I have no idea what the preferred style is, I leave it to more capable hands. Hotcop2 (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Look at the article and copy the style, its not that hard. Think of it as a useful learning opportunity.--SabreBD (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

There are multiple sources giving Beyoncé the title of "the next Michael Jackson" or "the heir-apparent to Michael Jackson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaknowitall (talk • contribs) 22:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

One reliable source will do.--SabreBD (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Just seen your reversion of the edit by user 139.133.11.2 and his reasoning that Pulp are a glam rock band because "they wear flashy clothes, use keyboards and sing about girls" – by that reasoning maybe we ought to consider labelling Jamie Cullum as a leading glam rock act. ;-) Looking through the user's edit contributions it's clear there is a history of vandalism there, as well as genre warring in the field of rock/metal. Richard3120 (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I love the idea of Jamie Cullum as a glam rock revivalist and we probably need to define almost every other rock band with a keyboard player in that category. As you say probably not a constructive edit. Thanks for looking into it.--SabreBD (talk) 10:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I notice that you have made many edits to this article. Unfortunately most of the last twenty years have gone missing. is there something that you can do with the deleted material on 1995-present day please?-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I will take a look.--SabreBD (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.

Not sure is there a problem with the disambiguation? thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Scottish art in the nineteenth century you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Erachima -- Erachima (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The article Scottish art in the nineteenth century you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Scottish art in the nineteenth century for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Erachima -- Erachima (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The article Scottish art in the nineteenth century you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Scottish art in the nineteenth century for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Erachima -- Erachima (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

14:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC) — 01:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC), though once you've addressed the issues I'll be happy to pass it regardless. --erachima talk 07:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The notification bot was evidently being a bit slow there. I have made all the changes I can and there are a couple of issues that need some consideration.--SabreBD (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the bands because Kix and Hanoi Rocks aren't from Sunset Strip, but Ratt and Dokken are (the ones I've listed). Furthermore, glam metal being a subgenre of hard rock is referenced in the article's body, so omitting the cite in the lead is a correct edit.--Retrohead (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I know no one ever reads the header on my talkpage, but could we possibly do this on the article talkpage where it belongs please.--SabreBD (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Also it should be noted that merely because a source says something illogical, doesn't mean that we're forced to. Grunge has been cited as leading to the decline of hair metal and other related genres of Hard Rock, but grunge is itself a genre of hard rock. It isn't consistent to make a statement which then claims that it isn't. I'd be interested to read the exact wording of the source you're using to support this statement; and again merely because one source says it doesn't mean that, for the sake of quality writing, we are forced to say something equally as silly. A change of phrasing or wording, or the choice to supply other sources which don't make illogical statements, would also work well. --Jayron32 00:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

For the second time, please provide a source. You've said in edit summaries you could do so. And yet, you have not yet. I do not think this request is unreasonable. --Jayron32 19:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read the statement at the top of this page. This is not the article talkpage.--SabreBD (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Scottish art in the eighteenth century you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sabredb,

I've posted my Scottish art in the eighteenth century - GA review. There's a long list, a lot of which are suggestions for clarification, tagged with {s} just after the bullet. You may want to start by skipping over them the first time through to get to the key issues -- but, of course, whatever works the best for you.

Because the list is long, I took care of the citation format issue. If there's something else I can do to help pitch in, let me know.

It's an interesting article!--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The article Scottish art in the eighteenth century you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Scottish art in the eighteenth century for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't the point of the hold... it was to give you more time based upon your schedule. It wasn't to threaten to have it fixed or it would fail.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Understood. I will keep in touch about how things are going. Thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I just thought I'd touch base - it's been seven days since the review was put on hold - and I remember that you're quite busy. Are you interested in having the GA review for this article at this time? If so, do you think another week is sufficient to work on it? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately I have had to work most of this weekend. I will try to find time to get to this tomorrow, but I am very pushed for time at the moment. Thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't catch that you had responded. I went ahead and made edits and passed the article. They were all pretty minor.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The article Scottish art in the eighteenth century you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Scottish art in the eighteenth century for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Well its all good. Many thanks for all your hard work. Much appreciated.--SabreBD (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Scotland under the Commonwealth you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The article Scotland under the Commonwealth you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Scotland under the Commonwealth for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The article Scotland under the Commonwealth you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Scotland under the Commonwealth for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Music in early modern Scotland you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The article Music in early modern Scotland you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Music in early modern Scotland for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The article Music in early modern Scotland you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Music in early modern Scotland for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

On 17 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Scottish religion in the 17th century, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Scottish religion in the seventeenth century included intense conflicts between Presbyterian Covenanters and government forces? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Sabrebd. You have new messages at Mark Schierbecker's talk page.
Message added 02:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Sabrebd. You have new messages at Talk:Scotland in the High Middle Ages.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bejnar (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a Rfc and discussion at Template talk:Track listing#RfC regarding track listings, about how the songs in a track listing should be numbered. The result could have repercussions for every article of albums originally released in vinyl. If you are interested, please join in the discussion there. Lewismaster (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Sabrebd. You have new messages at Talk:Scotland in the High Middle Ages.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bejnar (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

On 28 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Scottish art in the eighteenth century, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that The Skating Minister (pictured) is among the famous pieces of Scottish art in the eighteenth century? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Scottish art in the eighteenth century. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Scottish art in the nineteenth century you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The article Scottish art in the nineteenth century you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Scottish art in the nineteenth century for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kingdom of Scotland may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * Barrow, G. W. S., ''The Kingdom of the Scots'' (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Scottish art in the Prehistoric era you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The article Scottish art in the Prehistoric era you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Scottish art in the Prehistoric era for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't exactly understand why you reverted our edit on the Muffin Man page. The edits we made were small, and they were helpful to the page. In a title, everything needs to be capitalized, even a heading. This is a common grammar error. On the song, we researched, and it is actually on, not in. Hiretsuna de~yuo (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

On the first point please see MOS:SECTIONCAPS, not everything in a heading is capitalised. On the second, it does not matter what is "correct", the quotation is what is in the source. Please see MOS:QUOTE. Also in British English, it is completely normal to say "in", as in this source.--SabreBD (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I did research. Yes, you're right. Thanks for correcting me. Hiretsuna de~yuo (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You are very welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Sabrebd. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.—  Philg88 ^♦talk 11:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I added HC punk and grunge to derivatives because their pages claim metal to be a stylistic origin. There should IMO be continuity between their articles and this one. Also, you've reverted my whole edit despite only opposing one part of it. I've restored the rest, but please revert manually in situations like these in the future.----MASHAUNIX 15:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If you do a controversial edit, you may want to not include other edits with it, as you force someone who reverts it to either revert the whole lot or spend ages trying to replicate your changes, which frankly looked mostly about spacing that did not effect the look of the box. Also, there is no necessity for one infobox to match others, because that might mean that they are consistently wrong, as Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself. The infobox needs to be based on what is sourced in the article.--SabreBD (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right about the revert stuff; I didn't realize the edit was controversial at the time, but I'll make sure to follow your advice in the future. Considering the change itself: in this case, the claims in the 2 other articles were backed up by sources there. Should I bring these sources to the metal article to make the change valid?----MASHAUNIX 16:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Genre changes are almost always controversial, especially in a FA or GA, where they are usually been the subject of endless debates and discussions. The right thing is to bring the sources over and integrate them in the text. However, you need to make sure the sources are as good or better than the ones in the article. I would give it a try and see what the reaction is. Or you could flag it on the talkpage first and that way you are less likely to get reverted. Also you will need to adapt them to fit the sfn system in the Heavy metal music article, which is a bit of a pain I am afraid. Hope that helps.--SabreBD (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Is literally every subgenre in the infobox backed up by sources in the article? I thought it would usually be enough if the pages linked had sources to prove themselves. Neverthless, I'll see what I can do, and might bring it up on the talk page as well; thanks for the advice.----MASHAUNIX 22:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

On 4 December 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Music in early modern Scotland, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the use of Great Highland Bagpipes (carving of piper pictured) in Scotland was first attested during the early modern period of Scottish music? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Music in early modern Scotland. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The article Scottish art in the Prehistoric era you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Scottish art in the Prehistoric era for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Disappointing of course but I can't imagine it would take much to get it ready for a 2nd nom. Just let me know if you want any assistance. Ben MacDui 19:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ben MacDui, but it is at my suggestion. I will let you know when I have some time and spare brain power to do an expansion.--SabreBD (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if you'd be interested in creating a few lists for Template:Lists of churches in Scotland by council area? I've started a basic one for Highland. Eventually it would be good to have detailed tabled lists by sub area with pretty pictures! It's a huge tasj though but worth starting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Sounds like a good project. I have some holiday next week so I will pick an area or two and see how hard it is to find sources.--SabreBD (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Why are you SO against his inclusion on the article, one of the pioneers of rock and roll? He's in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and the Rockabilly Hall of Fame. Why can't he be on the list? - Dpm12; 18:16 14 December 2014

Please read the notice at the top of this page about where these discussions should take place.--SabreBD (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

On 16 December 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Scottish art in the nineteenth century, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that David Wilkie, a nineteenth-century Scottish artist, was the key figure in the development of British genre and orientalist art (genre painting pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Scottish art in the nineteenth century. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you still writing articles on nursery rhymes? I've raised a question at Talk:Andy Pandy which I'm sure you can answer... Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I am pretty sure I know where the answer will be, I will take a look when I get home tonight. All the best.--SabreBD (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This message is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Death

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Death for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yarn) @ 19:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Redheylin made some changes to the heading of the Garage rock article, that, while improvements in may ways, do not yet sound right. I take issue with his change in terminology from "rock and roll" to "pop" (the suitable term, "raw," in the old wording, implied ragged, therefore "rock and roll" worked best) and his use of the term "emerged," seems out of place in light of the fact that, in the mid 60's, garage was not yet recognized as an identifiable entity (it was a huge happening, but was almost entirely unconscious and extemporaneous--the consciousness about it would not come until later in the early 70s). He brings up a good point about internationalization in his side-bar comments, but the article has yet to source in that direction. Perhaps we could keep most of his changes, but bring back "raw form of rock and roll" and remove the phrase, "that emerged." What do you think? Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that Ghmyrtle brought back the "raw form of rock and roll. That is a start. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I will take a look later and see what I think would be helpful.--SabreBD (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Although our interests are somewhat similar we don't seem to meet up very often. However, I dreamt up a template containing links to articles we have both contributed to, of which there is a first draft here. Please feel free to edit, comment, or ignore as you prefer. Sláinte. Ben MacDui 18:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this. A very good idea. I will take a look and see if I can think of anything else, but you may have them all here. Before I had to downsize my Wikipedia time due to work commitments, I was putting together an article on Religion in Prehistoric Scotland. This may prompt me to finish putting it together.--SabreBD (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It's now up and running as I am sure you have seen - there are probably a few tribes and artefacts to add somewhere. Good luck with your religious research. Ben MacDui 19:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks good. I will add anything if I come across it. Thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if you have an opinion on the use of the phrase "African-American genres" in the opening sentence? We have one editor who dislikes its inclusion, and I've reverted their change a couple of times. But I'm aware that, a couple of years ago, I argued against the phrase's inclusion - see the article talk page. What do you think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You might be interested to see that I'm reopening the issue of duplicate links at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Relax_duplicate_linking_rule. --Slashme (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I am wondering if you have a GIS version or shapefile of your map of the 14th-Century Scottish economy? I would really like to use it if you do.

Best, Cornelius — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.212.152 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Mmh. Hi. It was so long ago that I cannot remember what I did. I will have a look and see if I still have the original. I think it was just an outline I adapted, but I cannot remember where I got it from offhand.--SabreBD (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scottish Reformation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gavin Dunbar. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)