User talk:Sabrebd/Autoarchive 7

The article Heartland rock you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Heartland rock 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 Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Acid jazz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galliano (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) 09:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

	A Tesla Roadster for you!
	Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Man thanks. Its just what I always wanted.--SabreBD (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Brit funk 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:

• kit|drums]], [[Keyboard instrument|keyboards]], [[Hammond organ]], [[clavinet]], [[synthesizer]]), [[Horn section|horns]], [[congas]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sabrebd, Multi Genre Musician is honorific because multi genre isn't really a term in music. However due to the artists' ability to handle different types of music, he's often regarded as Multi Genre Musician. You and I know it's not really a correct statement hence a honorific nickname.Al Gomez (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This really belongs on the article talkpage, so I have copied it there and replied.--SabreBD (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Acid jazz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jazzmatazz (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) 09:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

With all do respect (and thanks) for your many fine contributions, I have to beg to differ with the recent changes made that dramatically change the way the Garage Rock article reads. Why didn't you start up a thread to first discuss these changes? We need to undo these changes, at least for the time being, and then discuss any later changes in an open forum. Please read my thread on the Talk page of that article, where I go into my reasons for why I am asking for this undo. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

SabreBD, I want to thank you, once again, for your many improvements to the Garage Rock article and so many others, so if I was splitting hairs above and on the talk page of Garage rock, I hope you understand it was only meant for the best (in that particular context). Thanks Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem.--SabreBD (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, just noted your WPMS assessments. All good, though I would take issue slightly with your one on the Battle of Arkinholm. While a small scale skirmish, it was the last hurrah of those opposing royal (Stewart) power in late medieval Scotland, and therefore quite important in the progress of the establishment of the centralised state of renaissance/modern Scotland. Brendandh (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Its a fair point. I was thinking of it in terms of a localised civil conflict, but it did have a significant impact on the kingdom overall. I have uprated it to medium. Probably not up there with Bannockburn, but more than a minor battle.--SabreBD (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Pains me, but List of Legendary Scottish Kings also.......?? :) Origin of a nation, or at least the belief behind it, etc... Best. Brendandh (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I could see that for an article. Do you think that is true of a list?--SabreBD (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Rather than starting an edit war i thought i would contact you directly with regards to state religion in the UK. England is the paramount state in the United Kingdom with London being the capital of both England and the UK. The monarch of this country is QE2. She is the head of the Anglican church and as the ref provided on the aforementioned states she is the head of the latter. This being taken into account means that the state or "established religion" of the United Kingdom (and the commonwealth) is Anglican Christianity. The British political system is under ultimate executive power from the monarchy although this power is now somewhat limited. This again corroborates with the argument for state religion.

25162995 (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for not starting an edit war and bringing this here, but I am going to copy this to the article talkpage and reply there so that other editors can participate.--SabreBD (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The article Government in early modern Scotland you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Government in early modern Scotland for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your work on this.--SabreBD (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Since you last responded to the editor currently disrupting that article, I was wondering if you could make sense of their most recent message at Of the Heart.... I've also reverted their most recent edit to that article, since it seemed disruptive and frankly, their edit summary was kind of confusing. Dan56 (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. To be honest I don't understand it either, but I will see if I can ask some questions and find out what the editor is doing.--SabreBD (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, if it's not too much trouble, could u comment at this post? An editor disputed my attempt to place the original cover and release date of an album in the infobox so it'd be in line with the template's guidelines. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Dan56 (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seven ill years, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages American colonies and Vagrant (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) 09:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The article Scotland in the Early Modern Era you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Scotland in the Early Modern 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 Royroydeb -- Royroydeb (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Where is the explanation?--SabreBD (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I have opened a formal RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Request for comment on the deprecation of left-aligned images under sub-headings,an issue on which you commented in previous discussion there. DrKiernan (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I will take a look later today.--SabreBD (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Religion in Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free Church of Scotland (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) 09:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Religion in the United Kingdom 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:

• in England and Wales said they had "none" around a quarter (25.1 per cent) of the population.<ref>[http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_290510.pdf ''
• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.royalinsight.gov.uk/output/Page4708.asp|title=The Monarchy Today > Queen and State > Queen and Church > Queen and Church of England|publisher=Cached at the [[Internet Archive]]. |accessdate=5 June 2010 |

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Highland Clearances". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 09:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Music in early modern Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treble (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) 09:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason why you removed my paragraph explaining why there were so many records by the same British artists on the charts at the same time in 1964 and into 1965.

This is very important to anyone who might not understand the amazing glut of 1963 and 1964 material that were being issued by different record companies.

What was there in my paragraph that you think is incorrect?

I edit several hundred articles a day - which one was this edit on and who are you?--SabreBD (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for finding a good home for the Adoration of the Magi carving. I've also posted to Wikicommons an even better image of The Judgement of Solomon from a sister panel, so if you ever create a page on Scottish sculpture that would be a natural candidate. I'm very keen to see treasures like these reach a wider public and not remain hidden from general view. Kim Traynor | Talk 00:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, we have so few surviving treasures like these from Scotland that I am really keen for them to be as visible as possible.--SabreBD (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

My repeated attempts to change "Radiohead are a .. band" to "Radiohead is a.. band" are being undone on the grounds of Restoring British English Syntax. Since British English recognises " a band" as a singular (collective) noun, it should have a singular verb. The recent phenomenon of using a plural verb with a single collective noun is just that: recent, but does not constitute British English Syntax in its correct form. It is an incorrect, recent colloquial phenomenon. Thankyou. Sister ratched (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not a recent phenomenon. It may help to see American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement.--SabreBD (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.7.13 (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Scotland in the early modern period 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 North8000 -- North8000 (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yay, that is really good news. It is pretty long I am afraid so I really appreciate you taking this on.--SabreBD (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Church music in Scotland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Treble, Bass, United Presbyterian Church and Episcopalianism

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Glorious Revolution in 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 Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Housing in 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:

• three per cent. The number of households containing three or more adults increased by 11 per cent). These changes in household composition contributed to a four per cent increase in the number of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The article Glorious Revolution in Scotland you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Glorious Revolution in Scotland for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Family 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 Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The article Family in early modern Scotland you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Family in early modern Scotland for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

On 1 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Glorious Revolution in Scotland, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Glorious Revolution put William and Mary (pictured) on the Scottish throne and led to the dominance of Presbyterians in the Church of Scotland? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Glorious Revolution 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 15:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kingdom of Scotland, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages French and Gaelic (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) 09:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This user is constantly removing sourced content from various hard rock/metal related articles based on his personal opinion. Besides, he is reverting constructive edits such as this. Thoughts? Shallowmead077 (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep I have had a couple of encounters. The truth is that there is not a lot we can do except to try to stick to the sourced version and argue it out on the article talkpage, although this is harder where less editors are watching the article.--SabreBD (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Scottish art in the Prehistoric era 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:

• BCE and follow a pattern found particularly in Ireland, but also across Britain and in Portugal.<ref name=MacDonald2000p13<ref>[http://nms.scran.ac.uk/database/record.php?usi=000-100-036-527-C&
• gov.uk/en/site/16278/details/sculptor+s+cave+covesea/ "Site Record for Sculptor's Cave Covesea"], ''Historic Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Scotland'', retrieved 4 March 2014.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! 94.173.7.13 (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Estate houses in 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 Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Bit harsh to label my attempt to clean it up as"Vandalism" perhaps. The lead was excessively long and a blockquote had been left unterminated resulting in markup being presented to the reader. Still, you've been at this game longer than me. Perhaps you might care to look at the history: I was going to correct the reference to the original bridge (12C) when in fact the original was 1C. A quick précis of the history from London_Bridge#History and a hat link thereto might not come amiss? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I was not referring to your edit, but this one. Your edit was fixing part of what was a bigger problem. When you get a recovered reference by a bot it usually means that a section has been deleted, as was the case here. I cannot see where the bridge is referred to as twelfth century. I must be missing something here.--SabreBD (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Court music in Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pavan (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) 09:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I posed a question there in response to BlueMoonset's posts, and was wondering what you think about it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I oppose the standards-creep at WP:GA. Reviewers should stick to the written standards and not rely on their own particular desires. It's no wonder GA nominators give up when harangued by this sort of nonsense. I'm not a fan of BlueMoonset's involvement, either. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Just clarifying, BlueMoonset has raised some items which they feel are significant enough to preclude GA; I'm the reviewer and do not agree that they rise to the level of precluding GA, but have asked if anyone would like to address them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I have deliberately avoided replying to this stuff directly because I did not want to be forced into criticising a previous well intentioned but flawed review. I also did not want to get into an argument with an established editor. Finally, I have also waited 24 hours before posting so that I was calm, but I have to agree with Chris troutman, this is all far above and beyond the criteria of the GA process. Resolving the many, "why is this?" issues in the original review would add very little to the narrative except more potential questions and I have no idea why they are being fixated on now by someone who was not willing to take on the review when they had the chance. Any of us could go to any article and carry out the same process, since they can never be definitive and we can always choose to misinterpret obvious sentences. I have done everything that I have been asked to do in this review by the reviewer. We both know that these are not in the remit of a GA review, but it is your choice: if you feel they are needed for GA status, then I will do them. If not, lets just get on with it. If BlueMooonset want to do the point editing of demanding another GA straight away then that is their prerogative. For myself, I think we should resist the standards creep and what ever else is going on here.--SabreBD (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I was not aware that a request for "clear and concise" prose was "standards creep"; in fact, it's a basic GA requirement. I have asked for very little, frankly: the unclear prose about d'Aubigny is identical to that in the James VI article, and could use some clarity—why Earl and not Duke, for example (Duke is a far bigger deal than Earl). I even made a couple of suggestions on how it might be improved back on February 21. I'm not talking about FA-level prose, just clear prose. I honestly have to ask: do you truly believe that those points I made then are not legitimate, and would not lead to an improved article if you took the time—probably less than it took you to write the above reply—to address? I'm puzzled and disappointed, not the least that you seem to think I'm deliberately choosing to "misinterpret obvious sentences" when I'm asking for more clarity. (I've just updated the final sentence of that section accordingly; it's one I can safely do without access to sources.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Although my opinion was not asked for, I'll continue to play through. I took a look at your comments on the GA review and I think you're splitting hairs. While your edits would undoubtedly improve the article, I maintain that those changes are beyond the scope of a merely "good" article. I'm not accusing you of having any ill intent, but I, too, am "disappointed" that your response to feedback is defensive behavior and continued tirades.

Furthermore, you're not even the reviewer. Do you believe North8000 incapable of doing this GA review, or does this article require your permission to be a GA? I banned a GA reviewer from my talk page for just this sort of foolishness. If you make GA the same goat-rope that FA has become, editors will discontinue asking for reviews. SabreBD is not new to GA and has more editing experience than either of us. I ask that you trust in their apprehensions if you don't agree with my argument. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: I've just made what I hope are my final posts in this. I'm glad to know that my edits would improve the article, at least; I've made as many as I can, and I've placed a "clarification needed" tag in the one place that still needs it, since I can't view crucial sections of the given source. I was going to write more here, but it's late, and I don't think further explanations will help since they're being seen as tirades. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sabrebd, since there is a lot there, I thought I'd note it here. Your tweak on the taxes item still had a loose end frOm a sentence standpoint. I tweaked the tweak but needed to have my work checked to see if I interpreted what was in the sentence properly. I listed this as an open item on the review. Could you check? North8000 (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have done that. It was sort of the other way around. A tax that is still being collected after a decade is a pretty unsuccessful one, although this is tricky because this is just an implication of the sourced used here.--SabreBD (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

IMO it's still confusing but too small to worry about. I think that it's because (at least in the US) "still being collected" would mean e.g. that the tax which was instituted back then is still in place. From the context in the article I'm guessing the "still being collected" means that there are taxes which were supposed to be be paid 10 years ago which are still not yet paid. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in the context of early modern tax, it is a one off thing, still collecting means some kind of obstruction.--SabreBD (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Congrats on your GA half-century. Very impressive! -Bill Reid | (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Ha, thanks. Next stop 100. If I can keep sane that long.--SabreBD (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The article Scotland in the early modern period you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Scotland in the early modern period for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of North8000 -- North8000 (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Scottish culture and music
Thank you, good article editor displaying the book of knowledge with coffee cup stain, for "complex artistic, literary and intellectual movement" articles on Scottish culture and music, such as Romanticism in Scotland and Rock music, for reviews, assessment, taking care of new and recent articles, and for missing, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I really do appreciate the encouragement.--SabreBD (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sabrebd, congratulations on the GA. I have nominated it for Did you know, which will hopefully result in the article apperaing on the main page. The link is Template:Did you know nominations/Women in early modern Scotland. Thanks, Matty.007 08:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, misread the GA nom page history. I will leave it hanging where it hopefully won't be reviewed, and if it passes then we can continue with the nom, if not I will CSD it. Thanks, Matty.007 08:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I will just CSD it and resurrect the nom if/when it becomes a GA. Thanks, Matty.007 08:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Would you care to weigh in at this discussion. It concerns whether a reviewer's paraphrased criticism should be included/kept at a music article. Dan56 (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Sabrebd can you help me with This User has already removed Heavy metal from other Zepplin songs. I tried to add a source and now he's trying to take it out of context, saying when the author wrote "Heavy metal guitar attacks", he wasn't reffering to Heartbreaker, Moby Dick, or Lemon Song, which are mentioned in the sourced paragraph.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You didn't understand what I'd say. You cannot add "heavy metal" on the slightest of mentions in a review/a book and I've reverted your edits for this reason. "Moby Dick" is not explicitly described as a heavy metal track on this book so you can not add this source with heavy metal in the infobox. Also do not use both your account and your IP adress in order to revert me, this is against Wikipedia rules. You can be blocked for this reason. Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is. All four of the songs mentioned could be sourced using my reference. If you only could understand what i'm trying to tell you. The author mentions those songs i listed for a reason. Please do not continue to remove sourced content based on your own personal analysis or take sources out of context based on personal whim.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No, "Led Zeppelin II, released in October 1969 , showed the band focusing its heavy metal guitar attack." doesn't make "Moby Dick" and all the other songs mentionned afterwards "heavy metal" songs. It simply means they feature some metal elements. For proof : "The virtuosity shown on songs like “Heartbreaker” set the mold for generations of aspiring guitarists. Similarly, “Moby Dick” provided a spotlight for Bonham, and in its live incarnations (which got ever longer as the band's concerts became bigger and bigger spectacles) brought the rock drum solo out of free jazz jams and into the realm of muscular, showstopping exhibitionism." In this example, both "Moby Dick" and "Heartbreaker" are not explicitly called "heavy metal". The author simply says it showed the band skills and the impact of these songs on other bands, nothing else. It's clear to me you don't even understand the source you used. As I said, read WP:SYNTH. Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Listen look up the term essay and parts of an essay opening statement, thesis, etc. You seem to know little about writing. If the author said Led Zeppelin II, released in October 1969 , showed the band focusing its heavy metal guitar attack, including songs such as Moby dick, Heartbreaker, and The Lemon song. it wouldn't be much of a book that's why he goes into detail. I recommend you read WP:STICKTOSOURCE, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. Also why not remove Heavy metal from some of the black sabbath songs since they are not sourced wither?--Fruitloop11 (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I know what an essay is, the problem is not here, and I already know all of the links you provided here. Genres are a sensitive case you must be careful when choosing a source. You cannot use one source just because it mentions the genre you want to add (also it's clearly a googled source). So find a better source or do not add the genre in the infobox of an article. The reason why I removed "heavy metal" from some Led Zeppelin songs articles is simply because I didn't find any reliable source which explicitly described these songs as "heavy metal". Do you understand it ? For "Moby Dick", I only kept "blues rock" because it was the only genre which was clearly, explicitly associated with the track. However the source I decided to use is not in English (but it's irrelevant as foreign languages sources are accepted on Wikipedia). Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This obviously developed while I was out for the evening. I think we can only do this on a case by case basis, so I will take a look at the songs and see what sources can be found. However, I have to point out that there is a difficulty with songs: the output of a band may be clearly heavy metal, but finding that for individual songs can be extremely problematic.--SabreBD (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's extreamly tedious and problematic to find sources for each individual song. Several hundreds of songs by Black Sabbath and Deep Purple are not sourced as metal either does that mean we should remove them? I would really like to know the users intention of going after Led Zepplin and not the other bands i listed. Common sense will tell you that Led Zepplin was a Heavy metal band that created Heavy metal songs. Also the thing about my Ip and my account is that Wikipedia keeps logging me out so sometimes i post with just my IP. I'm not doing it on purpose. --76.107.252.227 (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I quite disagree with you, to find sources for an individual song is not the hardest thing to do. However to make other people agree on a genre is the only real problem. Also your example regarding Black Sabbath and Deep Purple songs is the worst example you could find and, even if you didn't realize it before, this is a definitive, typical genre warrior behaviour, as they generally "prefer monolithic labels (...) by reducing one band's output to a single genre, e.g. "Metallica = heavy metal".". Led Zeppelin can't be considered a "definitive metal band", as stated by Allmusic. Most of their material heavily relies on blues and folk. They even experimented with genres such as funk, soul or reggae. I'm not saying they never perform metal songs (for example, this live version of "Immigrant Song" is clearly metal), I'm saying this is not the only one genre they experimented with. Why do you think "hard rock" is the first genre in Led Zeppelin infobox ? It's simple, the heavy metal tag was not accepted by everybody (Robert Plant himself rejected the label and other bands simply hated this term). Thus to use common sense is not as simple as it may seems. Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The article Women 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:Women in early modern Scotland for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Example -- Example (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Women in early modern Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episcopalian (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) 08:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I've passed on the GA review page, but I just wanna check if you're okay with the latest tweak I made to the lead. Lemme know on my talkpage and I'll pass it officially.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice to work with you. And thanks for the high-quality content. Scotland is getting a really thorough history coverage. :-)

Peter ^Isotalo 21:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice working with you too, thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'll review Hillforts in Scotland at Talk:Hillforts in Scotland/GA1 over the next few days.

On an unrelated note, User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js detects a large number of harvnb errors on England in the Late Middle Ages (20 out of 277.) A fair number come from the omission of Ziegler 2003 from the bibliography, but I'll fix some of the others. James^x12345 18:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hillforts in 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 Jamesx12345 -- Jamesx12345 (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, what is your reason for reverting twice the 21st century mod in the Acid Jazz article? are you making an edit war? Manytexts (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No I am restoring the consistency of spelling of a system that is inline with the MOS. Why do you keep trying to change it?--SabreBD (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sabrebd, I was wondering whether you could keep an eye on Barns of Ayr, as it was tagged for deletion. I have removed the tag as I believe that the Barns represent a historical event to those of Scottish heritage. I seek your advice as a highly valued editor. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I will take a look at it.--SabreBD (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited England in the Late Middle Ages, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Simon De Montfort, William Marshall and Richard, Duke of York (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, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

For the most part, I am adding the WPMILHIST template and B-class checklist to military-related topics, because no one else has done it. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

But what is the point if you just declare everything start class? It would be better just to leave the template unassessed. Once you have marked them as start class no one, including other projects, will tend to look at them. Do you honestly believe that England in the Late Middle Ages is start class under the criteria?--SabreBD (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If you believe any assessment is incorrect, then simply change it to whatever is the correct assessment in you opinion. If you need help with this, then use Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. And it would not be better to leave then unassessed. It is expected that articles in the WPMILHIST have an assessment. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not go around assessing my own articles and frankly I do not need help. Why not just actually use the criteria and get it right the first time?--SabreBD (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I appreciate you efforts to help reduce the disruptive editing done by IP64. Sorry I wasn't around to contribute to the discussion but great work like yours keep me involved with assessment. Molestash (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. I appreciated the encouragement.--SabreBD (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm curious as to why you keep deleting my section on the glam metal page?

~Voerman

You are not the only one! It would appear that Sabrebd has it in for music citation and this should be reported.

~Sally Belle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sally Belle (talk • contribs) 22:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, only moments ago you deleted a reference I made to a link on indie pop music which is not only frustrating but rather confusing. I had a lot more to add to this page as I worked for 3 years in a small indie label and the page suggests it requires support. Youtube and other similar delivery networks play a huge role in how music is found and consumed and if you had bothered to look a little further you would note that particular track ranks very well for that search term. As a result of such anomalies people discover fringe or indie music in completely different ways which is an essential part of the independent movement. SB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sally Belle (talk • contribs) 22:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please follow the link I gave at WP:EL and also read WP:RS. Youtube is not considered a suitable external link or a reliable source.--SabreBD (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your input and advice on this but I am curious about something. I found the page with a paragraph about the recent happenings that was biased sounding and included no citation. I edited it to make it less biased, added a bit more info and 3 citation links but you removed my update and reverted back to the previous, poorer version. I understand now about recentism but was wondering why you reverted to a version that still contains recentism, and not remove that paragraph completely as someone else later did? Thanks again. Jamie60509 (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. The short answer is that I was in a hurry and didn't look through the whole edit history. My bad. I see it has been fixed now. Thanks for trying to improve the sourcing.--SabreBD (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The article Hillforts in Scotland you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hillforts in 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 Jamesx12345 -- Jamesx12345 (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your work on this, much appreciated.--SabreBD (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Scottish art in the eighteenth century (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Wedderburn, David Allan, John Bacon and Duncan Forbes

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I nominated National Convention article for GA. I noticed that you have been involved in GA process including History articles and wonder if you can take a look at it. Sincerely, Nivose (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately, I am very busy at the moment in the real world, so I don't really have time to take this on just now. However, if no one gets to it first I will take a look when things ease up.--SabreBD (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I take you by your word. Thank you for response. Nivose (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You are the custodian of page called "Alternative Country," yet you not only don't include the name Gene Clark, but delete it when I add it? Do you really not know who Gene Clark is or his importance? There is a very active debate in the music world as to whether or not his name should be above Gram Parsons's as the "godfather" of alt country. I await your explanation. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liveoakblues (talk • contribs) 22:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to add this you need a reliable source.--SabreBD (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Would you care to review or comment/vote (support/oppose) at my FA nomination for the article Marquee Moon, an article about a rock music album? Information on reviewing an FA nomination's criteria is available at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Good work and good luck with that - impressive work on an important album.--SabreBD (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scottish education in the nineteenth century, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Whig and Glasgow High School (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) 08:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The article Estate houses in 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:Estate houses in Scotland for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hamiltonstone -- Hamiltonstone (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I've just read the article on Ketill Flatnose and made a few minor edits. I had been discussing the article with Rothorpe at User talk:Rothorpe#Ketill Flatnose. There is a sentence that does not sound right, but neither Rothorpe nor I know the best way to fix it. I thought you might be able to. As you will see at Rothorpe's Talk page, it is the second sentence in the first bulleted item in the second group of bulleted items in Ketill Flatnose#Caittil Find. CorinneSD (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. Not sure if I can help, but I will take a look.--SabreBD (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kingdom of Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episcopalianism (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) 08:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The article Estate houses in Scotland you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Estate houses in 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 Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Historical demography of 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The article Historical demography of 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:Historical demography of Scotland for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Estate houses in Scotland, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Housekeeper, Scottish court and William Adam (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) 08:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The article Demographic history of 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:Demographic history of Scotland for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Example -- Example (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The article Historical demography of Scotland you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Historical demography of Scotland 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Concerning this edit, I thought I had reverted it back to "rock music", although it looks like I only reverted the addition of a correcting bracket. Thanks for catching that. — Confession0791 ^talk 01:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem.--SabreBD (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You have reverted my edit on the basis of unsound references; some were unsound (though there are others available), others I feel were ok. Rather than starting an edit war, I thought it would be best to try and resolve the issue here. The members of the Skota Skolo (Scottish School) and its prestige is variously attested. Would the following source (as used on the Esperanto wikipedia page) satisfy: (Pierre Janton, Esperanto: lingvo, literaturo, movado, Universala Esperanto-Asocio, Roterdamo, 1988.) (it is an academic book by a French literary critic and linguist)

The second source given, the one to back up the existence and authorship of Kvaropo (foursome), was an ISBN number and a link to its entry on WorldCat – in what way is that unreliable? (any source on the Skota Skolo will almost certainly mention Kvaropo, so references with further information shouldn't be needed. Why can't a book serve as reliable evidence of its own existence?). Also, you yourself have added a mention to Auld's collection Spiro de l' pasio, which was only published IN the book Kvaropo as part of the Skota Skolo!

But furthermore, any mention of William Auld should also mention La infana raso, the work for which he is best known and for which he was nominated for the Nobel Prize for Literature. A source for the existence of La infana raso could surely be a reference to itself (as it is a published book with an ISBN) {incidentally, this source would also prove it has a foreward written by John Francis, something I didn't mention in the article but could be added}? A source for its prestige could be: (Verloren van Themaat, Willem A. "Esperanto literature and its reception outside the Esperanto movement." Babel 35, no. 1 (1989): 21-39.) (a journal article).

I appreciate that many of the sources I posted before were lazy, but there were better sources out there – I had hoped someone would simply update the sources rather than deleting them. I do hope you will feel my new sources are adequate and consent to them being used. – R160K (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Having double-checked the Telegraph reference, it also gives credence to claim the Auld's La infana raso was inspired by Pound's cantos. I will leave it unchanged for a day or two, but if I hear nothing back I will assume you have no objection to the new sources. - R160K (talk) 09:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Its good that you have consulted rather than just reverted, but really the place for this is on the talkpage of the article. I will try to check through the sources today if I can find time and enthusiasm.--SabreBD (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Scottish religion in the eighteenth century 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:

• <ref>R. M. Wilson, ''Anglican Chant and Chanting in England, Scotland, and America, 1660 to 1820'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, ISBN 0198164246, p. 192.</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)