Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:25, 31 October 2009

Hello Sssoul, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! Cheers, Ian Rose 23:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Getting started Misplaced Pages Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Misplaced Pages Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Misplaced Pages rules Policy Library Getting help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikipedians Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

User talk:Sssoul/Archive 1 (pre-2009)
User talk:Sssoul/Archive 2
archive: welcome template
User:Sssoul/sandbox
Grokster's Misplaced Pages hit counter, by month

Rod Stewart

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

Glimmer Twins

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

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

Citation needed

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

Pop music

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

hello and thanks for the work, and for asking me to have a look. i'm really busy these days, but from a cursory glance it looks like you're moving in some right directions here, but also at times veering mighty close to that problem of differentiating between this particular genre and popular music. the way record charts classify things, for example, is not an especially reliable genre guideline - look at the history of the term R&B, for example, and the terms it replaced/has been replaced by over the decades. that's just one reason i feel record chart classifications belong in the article on record charts, way more than in this one.

i'd also like to think about some smoother/clearer phrasing for the first sentence of the rewrite. as i say i am really busy right now but i will be thinking about it.

again thanks for working on this. Sssoul (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for finding time to look this and comment. I will probably give it a little bit of time (I find it easier to spot my own errors then), then do a re-edit based on your points before I post it. You can always edit it on the article at some later date when you get more time. The reference to charts was just a statement of fact, as that was the first reference the OED could find, but I do see what you mean, pop and charts are not the same, that error was one of the big problems with the earlier long article. --Sabrebd (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know I tried to incorporate your comments and posted it, mainly as I wanted my sandbox back. If you come up with better or more elegant solutions you can always edit it there, I am pretty unlikely to object. Thanks.--Sabrebd (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks - it looks mainly good. could you clarify this part, though, please and thank you? i'd tackle it myself as you invited me to above, but i don't understand it:

• From the 1950s the term "pop music" began to be used to to describe a distinct genre, initially to distinguish it in the newly emerging charts of record sales

i'd smooth it out to something like "The use of the term "pop music" to describe a distinct genre started in the 1950s. Initially it was used to distinguish the newly recognized genre in record-sales charts ..." but ... ultimately i don't understand what that actually means: to distinguish it from what? if "from rock and roll", then this statement is redundant vis-a-vis the bit that follows it. and to me the bit that follows it reads better, is more informative and is more appropriately sourced. Sssoul (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

thanks for this - there are lots of interesting points in what you wrote, but yeah it does undermine the point that this article is about a specific genre quite a lot. i think part of the problem is that lots of sources in fact don't distinguish clearly between popular music in general and the specific genre that this article is trying to be about. a lot of what you've written above would work nicely in the popular music article, but i feel that the pop music article was better off with the previous unelaborated statement from allmusic.com to the effect that starting in the 1950s the term was used to refer to a specific genre viewed as a "lighter" alternative to rock & roll, and then writing about the characteristics of that genre, without slithering into the territory that record charts were calling "pop". that's a different kettle of fish, truly. Sssoul (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Back to basics (trying to balance accuracy with clarity):

The term "pop song" is first recorded as being used in 1926 in the sense of a piece of music "having popular appeal". From the 1950s the term "pop music" began to be used to to describe a distinct genre, aimed at a youth market, often as a softer alternative to rock 'n' roll.--Sabrebd (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

looks good - can we change the second sentence a bit, to avoid the awkward "from the 1950s" and the mysterious missing participle in the "often as" clause - often what as - often described as?? often conceived of as?? something like ... hm ... how's this:

Starting in the 1950s the term "pop music" has been used to to describe a distinct genre, aimed at a youth market, often characterized as a softer alternative to rock and roll.

Sssoul (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me--Sabrebd (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

actually i woke up realizing that "often characterized by" is "weasel wording": who often characterizes it that way?? i guess taking out the "often" and adding the allmusic ref would solve that problem, though. Sssoul (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC) sorry and pass the caffeine, please - i now see what you've done in the article, and as long as that source supports the "often characterized" that's all very cool indeed. thanks very much! Sssoul (talk) 07:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The source does, but I decided to put the All Music one back in as well, because it is easier to access (and so to support the point). I think I am done with this article for a while as I cannot see any way of expanding without inviting many arguments about the "best pop band ever". I look forward to deleting lists of bands and references to the king of pop for the next few months. Thanks for all the co-operation, which was very helpful and what WP should really be all about.--Sabrebd (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Custard, horse, chariot, island

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

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

Question on Misplaced Pages Survey

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

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

thank your for your advice and i'll create an account soon.

Barnstar

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

Happy to oblige

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

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

Linking

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

by "the current structure" i mean the one imposed a few months ago. the discussion of it is now archived, and i provided a link to in my recent posts and in the section called "back to that proposed restructuring". if you look at the archived discussion, you'll see that the person who implemented it did so in mid-discussion, without taking into account a lot of the points people were raising. Sssoul (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a long discussion, and I am not convinced it's the best use of my time to delve into a change history to find out who implemented what when. It would be much clearer for everyone if we had a neat little list of the changes that got missed. Can you please write that at WT:LINK? Thanks! — Sebastian 22:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

um ... i have other things to do with my time as well, Sebastian! if it's really too much to skim that, maybe it'll be helpful to at least be aware that the way this page originated and then got reorganized does have a history. Sssoul (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Would it help if I make a list of the changes? Tony (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Tony, thanks, but the discussion seems to have moved on to other issues now. Sssoul (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Response

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

Possessives frazzle

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

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

Thanks for the 'good read'

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

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

Thanks... I know I have it somewhere? Just can't find it. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Accidental revert

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

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

Mediation

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

FYI

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

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

Blues

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

YYYY-MM-DD numerical date format in footnotes

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

Greetings Sssoul

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

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

Little R

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

Apology

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

no apologies needed - again, i know nothing (0) about image-related issues, so all i can do is sympathize without comprehending. if/when you do have time to ask that photographer to confirm 1972 as the year those shots were taken (or to correct it - but i'm over 99% sure they're from 72) that would be great, but obviously it can wait for a less-frustrated moment. Sssoul (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sssoul, yeah, I'm just begging every competant editor to explain Commons, so sorry 'bout that. I was so sick of seeing NO photos on biography pages it drove me crazy. So after 2 years of editing here, I spent the better part of the last one looking for photos --takes up maybe 40% (or more) of a full day editing, but the reward is cool. The only bummer is these (insert foul language :) people at Commons; it's like you gotta read a freaking manual to understand what half the stuff and templates there are even for. And once you do understand... ...they change the bleedin' rules! I've not felt so frustrated in my life than with them; unfortunately the photos have to come through Commons.

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

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

Apology

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

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

"Seeking more caffeine"

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

Dead links

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

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

Blues/Country spam

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

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

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

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

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

1. ^ J. Simpson and E. Weiner, Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), cf pop.
2. S. Frith, "Pop Music" in S. Frith, W. Stray and J. Street, The Cambridge Companion to Pop and Rock (Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 93-108.
3. T. Warner, Pop music: technology and creativity: Trevor Horn and the digital revolution (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), p. 3.
4. R. Serge Denisoff, and William L. Schurk, Tarnished gold: the record industry revisited (Transaction Publishers, 3rd edn., 1986), pp. 2-3.