User:Spylab/User talk:Spylab/archive4

Ska

• I hereby award this barnstar to Spylab for outstanding contributions to the ska music article. You have pushed this article in a direction that has long been needed. Little tinyfish 00:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Use of "unreferenced" tag

I've removed the unreferenced tag from the top of the Civic virtue article. Please do not put it back there without further discussion.

The tag is to be at the top of an article only when an article has no references. That, as you say, having only 4 footnotes for the entire article is insufficient, is true, but the purpose of the tag at the top of an article is not to identify articles with insufficient footnotes; it's to identify articles with no footnotes.

I believe that the tag can be used within individual sections as well as at the top of the article. You might consider doing that instead. If you do, I suggest picking just two or three sections that are most lacking in references, rather than tagging every single section that qualifies. (See Template:Unreferenced for further information.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

How to request a block

I noticed your post to User talk:70.91.134.121. If you feel an account should be blocked, you can add an entry to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I hope this is of use to you, Notinasnaid 14:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Black people

Hi Spylab. I just feel that in your attempt to discredit Rushton's definition (which is only 1 out of dozens in the article), you are adding stuff to the article that is far more offensive than the quote you are trying to discredit. The quote is not saying anything bad about black people, it's simply identifying a segment of the population that academic racialists uses the term to refer to. But in trying to discrecit the definition, you are adding negative stereotypes of black people to the article that will peak reader curiosity and cause them to read the source's theories. I also worry that if you try too hard to discredit the source, others will add information to defend the source, and then pretty soon the article will get off topic. I also worry you might start a trend where people who disagree with every controversial statement in the article will feel the need to discredit the source in the black people article itself instead of in the source's article. For example there are several on the talk page who disagree with Cheikh Anta Diop. I worry that people will follow your lead and feel the need to discredit him in the article on the grounds that the reader has the right to know his Afrocentric attitudes etc. It could cause a very well organized article to spiral into disorder. I do agree that it's important to establish that Rushton has been accused of racism and hence his definition may be biased (though still relevant since academic racism plays a huge role in the social construction of black identity), but I question the wisdom of going into specific details that publicize negative black stereotypes. It just seems like overkill when Rushton's quote has now been reduced to 1 sentence (his definition of negroid was taken out as was Michael levin's since defining negroid is arguabley off topic in this article) Anyway if you feel very strongly that it's important to include all this information I wont revert you (since you've compromised with me on this issue) but I leave this message as food for thought.Iseebias

• If revealing J. Philippe Rushton's actual acadamic credentials and racial/political biases (information that is backed up by reliable sources) is considered "offensive" and "discrediting" him, then perhaps his quotes should not be included in the black people article. In fact, a few editors have requested that his content be deleted from the article. I tend to agree, but am willing to comprimise by allowing his views to be in the article only if the necessary biographical information is included. Spylab 14:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. My intention in putting him in was simply to document the fact that proponents of racial theories reserve the term black only for those of PREDOMINANTLY sub-Saharan descent (as opposed to the 1 drop rule), and do not consider North Africans to be black. I feel this is an important contrast to make with Afrocentric scholars who take a much broader view on who is black, and the relevance of the whole sub-Saharan distinction becomes clear in the criticism section. Again, my only goal is to document the full spectrum of notable ways the term black is applied and academic racialism is certainly notable. If you feel that in the interest of full-disclosure, it is also important to document some of the racialist theories that accompany Rushton's definition, then I respect your decision. Iseebias

Redundancy

There's no need to have two redundant tags that redundantly repeat the same warning so that it's repeated. A tag that says There are some unverified and/or original research claims in here. Please add sources or fix it makes sense, because it's not redundant. Have two redundantly identical tags repeating the same redundant message is simply redundant. Repeating the tag doesn't add one iota of new content, it just repeats what was already said. Saying it once is a good idea, but repeating it in the next sentence is just redundant. WilyD 16:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

White People

"deleted factually inaccurate claim that is not backed up by a reliable source" is backed by a reliable source which is [1] Follow talk page more carefully before deleting material. Lukas19 20:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the history, I didn't mean to delete that specific sentence in the article. It got deleted because it is was right after this one "Europeans have paler skin (and hair) than any other group on Earth and the extreme of the paleness adaptation is found only in people who are native to the region within 600 miles of the Baltic and North seas." [2] It's very easy to make mistakes when editing that article, because there is so much back-and-forth edit warring, and people inserting dodgy factual claims and racist opinions. Spylab 11:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Counter-Racism Science

I've left a message for Edward Williams (talk · contribs) explaining some things about Wikipedia and asking for information about "Counter-Racism Science". (A quick Google came up with http://www.counter-racism.com/, but he may have a different group in mind.) I don't think the information he's adding to articles belongs in those articles, but perhaps it could belong somewhere else in Wikipedia.

While I'm here: thank you, thank you, thank you for your work on white people and similar articles. Cheers, CWC(talk) 07:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Red Links

Hi, please don't remove red wikilinks, as they encourage new articles to be written as per WP policy. Thanks! ShakingSpirit^talk 16:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence that red links encourage people to write articles. They just clutter up pages and make them look unprofessional. If a subject is notable, someone will write an article. Not every topic or person is important enough for an article. Spylab 16:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That's as may be, but please see WP:RED - those links are relevant to the subject matter, and should not be removed simply because the pages don't exist yet. ShakingSpirit^talk 16:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Spylab. I think it's implied that if something is worth documenting, it'll eventually have an article created for it. Some of these redlinks are pretty ridiculous, and will never have an article written for it. Salish88 02:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Salish88

Deletion of information

Similar to your mistake in white people article, you have also deleted information at this edit: [3] which you explained as: "copy edited for formatting, spelling, grammar, punctuation and wording" which does not justify your deletion. Be careful next time. Lukas19 02:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think you may be wrong about that. I moved content around to make it flow better, but I don't see any deletions.Spylab 10:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh. It was the edit right after yours [4] I guess I am the one who should be more careful next time...Lukas19 22:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked for 48 hours for repeatedly replacing a prod notice and therefore 3RR. Viridae^Talk 03:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw you'd been reprodding, and came to your talk page to point out WP:PROD#Conflicts. You will see that it says that you should not replace a prod once it has been contested, even if you find the reasoning flimsy, or it is the article's creator or an IP who does the deprodding. (You also shouldn't be calling a deprod vandalism, or putting down IP editors, either). --Groggy Dice T | C 17:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that according to strict enforcement of the rules, I should not have replaced legitimate prod tags even though they were deleted without justification by an anonymous IP user. However, judging by the aftermath, it looks like that although my methods were wrong, my reasoning was sound. From now on, I will always use the AFD type of deletion proposal (other than in cases that warrant speedy deletion), so other editors will be encouraged to discuss the issue, and because that kind of deletion proposal isn't supposed to be deleted until the discussion period is complete. I have learned that it is pointless to post the other kind of deletion tag since anyone can delete it without a reason at any time, and it isn't supposed to be replaced, no matter how justified it is. I find it interesting that the anonymous IP user who kept reverting my edits was not also temporarily banned for 3RR, especially since that person offered no justification for the edits, and did not respond to requests for explanations in my edit notes and in comments on that anonymous IP user's talk page. The only edits that the anonymous IP user made was to delete legitimate deletion proposals, without offering any explanation other than "seems notable." Spylab 10:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

I hate to be pedantic, but after referring to my Collins English Dictionary - ISBN 00-433134-6, neither lineup or breakup are listed. Indeed lineup is spelt 'line-up', and breakup as either 'break up' or 'break-up'. I will accept this may be a difference between English english and American english, but as Sham 69 is an English based band, surely the mother tongue (and its spelling) should prevail.

Derek R Bullamore 15:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if there is a geographic variation in the way they are spelled, but according to dictionary.com they can be spelled either way. My preference is to use the spellings without the hyphen, and that's the way I usually see those words spelled on Wikipedia Spylab 10:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Red links

Hi, Spylab! Please, do not remove red links from Wikipedia articles as you did, for example, here. Red links are pointers to articles that have not yet been written but should be written at some point of time in future. Removing them is only warranted when a topic being linked should not have an article. Additionally, in this particular case, the backlinks these red links produce are vital to another project dealing with cross-referencing, organization, and categorization of articles on Russian geographic locations.

Please see WP:RED for additional information about red links. Thank you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have seen no evidence that red links encourage people to write articles. They just clutter up pages and make them look unprofessional. If a subject is notable, someone will write an article. Not every topic or person is important enough for an article. Spylab 16:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've seen otherwise, but that's not my point. In this particular case, the backlinks produced by these red links is what's important. There are tens of thousands geographic points in Russia, all of which need to have articles eventually (geographic locations are not subject to notability criteria, by the way; they only need to be verifiable). Absence of organization, categorization, disambiguation, and proper cross-linking creates unnecessary amounts of needless cleanup and maintenance after the articles have been written.

Additionally, no matter what your personal view of the matter is, removing valid red links is against WP:RED. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Twisted Wheel

Hello Spylab. I have just had a look at your edits for the Twisted Wheel page. I agree a little tuning was needed but the edits applied seem to have been done with a butchers knife. Please revisit the page, reinstate the connections with Chris Rea's song ( check with him for citation) the map links are useful for placement and I believe articles should reflect the subject matter and not simply be cold. Put back the soul you took out Ska man. regards, Docludi.

• The song lyrics are uncited, and seem out of place in an serious encyclopedic article. The link to the site with the maps is already in the External Links section, so there is no real need to have that link in the body of the article, unless a specific page of that site is used as a reference. However, the link I deleted was merely a link to the front page, which isn't very useful as a reference in that particular sentence. The reader shouldn't have to search through a site to find the specific information that is being used to support a statement. The section of text with the improperly-formatted title From "Whitworth Street" is uncited and seems to be pasted directly from a book or website. The other section I deleted, saying soul all-nighters were the first raves, is uncited opinion, otherwise known as original research. Spylab 10:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Nazi skinhead

Don't bother about edit warring and reverting and breaking 3RR, I've already reported him to the blocking admin for evading his block so he'll be blocked when the admin is online, and based on the discussion on ANI it's likely he'll be community banned at this rate. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your report at AIV

You did make a RFCU before you reported them for sockpuppetry, unless they were obvious ones in which case a RFCU isn't needed, didn't you?  ~Steptrip 23:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm a bit of a WikiGnome, meaning that I do odds and ends to make sure that things run smoothly, and as such, I'm glad that someone finally appreciated my suggestions (I am a deletionist, and I am normally the one at whom complaints about deletion nominations are directed).  ~Steptrip 00:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding the case to the top of the main RFCU page.  ~Steptrip 00:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Punk Subculture

I apologize if your edit was legitimate. However, looking at your talk page, you have been blocked once, and, no offense, but this does subtract to your credibility. Also, this edit did look like vandalism (From Dickies to Dicks). -Billy227 18:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Independents

Hey Spylab. Please, do not remove the links you call "Spam links". Those were not spam links, click past the advertisement and you will find the MessageBoard, thanks. -unsigned

• I know what spam is and I stand by my edit: [5]. Spylab 10:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A message board is not spam..

Checkuser case completed

Hi, A checkuser IP Check case you filled has been completed by a CheckUser, and archived. You can find it for 7 days at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check/Archive. -- lucasbfr ^talk, checkuser clerk, 08:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Checkuser case completed

Hi, A checkuser IP Check case you filled has been completed by a CheckUser, and archived. You can find the results for 7 days at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check/Archive. -- lucasbfr ^talk, checkuser clerk, 09:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

errr... nevermind... seems you filled the case twice -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• I got the impression from the instructions that I had to post my request on two specific pages. I did find that strange that it had to be posted twice, but I did what I thought the instructions said. Spylab 10:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hippie edits

Your edit of the hippie lead removed quite a bit of elaborately sourced material that has been worked out in compromise by various editors over the past year. I reverted to a previous version by Viriditas (one of the main contributing editors). Apostle12 19:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• I did not remove a single thing from that article. I corrected the formatting and improved the wording and order of the first section. Spylab 20:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Spylab, it's good to see you've taken an interest in improving the Hippie article. I hope the three of us can work together. Could I ask you to please be a little more civil towards other editors? You accused Apostle12 of bad faith in the edit summary and I think that's unfair. While I too have had my disagreements with other editors, Apostle12 has spent a lot of time and hard work on the page. He's also very keen on the subject. Let's try to maintain a friendly, working relationship and learn from each other. —Viriditas | Talk 19:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

White supremacy edits

Hi. I'd like to retain the "Contemporary white supremacist groups" section of our White supremacy article. I hope that Chip Berlet himself will provide some cites for at least one para of it. See User talk:Cberlet#Request for info/corrections/cites, where I explain one of my motives.

Ideally, every claim in a Wikipedia article would have a cite, but we generally allow uncited non-controversial claims that could be cited if/when someone does the research. Is there any particular statement in that section that you are concerned about?

Thanks again for your good work here. Cheers, CWC 06:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The origins of "hip"

Somehow during your recents edits of the "Hippie" article an important reference was ignored. This is an article by Jesse Sheidlower that appeared in "Slate" magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2110811/), where he specifically and knowledgably refutes the theory that the word "hip" derives from "hep" in the West African Wolof language. Scheidlower maintains that the origins of "hip" are unknown, and given his credentials I believe we need to pay attention to his analysis. Thanks. Apostle12 03:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Spylab, you are doing good work around here, but do you think your edit which changed the origins of "hip" from unknown to disputed is supported by the citations? From what I can tell, it isn't. Could you provide the name of a reputable linguist who recognizes a dispute? The current version of the OED lists the origin of the word "hip" as unknown, as does the citation. Please change it back. —Viriditas | Talk 12:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Holloway is citing Dalby. [6]. —Viriditas | Talk 12:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The article says on one hand there's a theory that it came from an African word, but also that one expert disagrees with that theory. That means the origin is disputed. If the word "unknown" is used, it implies that nobody has any clue about where the word comes from. Spylab 12:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring about Category:African-American topics

Hi, Spylab. Please stop edit warring on Wigger and try to work it out on the talkpage. See my post here. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 10:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

• Two reverts is not an edit war. Spylab 10:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Oh yes it is. Bishonen | talk 10:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

• I suggest you read Wikipedia:Edit war and Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Spylab 10:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Thank you. I suggest you click on my link. My message here on your page was merely intended as a pointer to Talk:Wigger. Please take the discussion there. Bishonen | talk 11:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

• I don't even care about about that category issue any more, so I'm not going going to discuss it further. Spylab 11:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing the football hooliganism page

I am in the middle of editing this article. It is a long process and I am doing it gradually, and have been working on it now for about two hours. Your removal of some content for instance from the Ghan section, whilst well meaning is only making editing this more difficult. I would just ask that you wait a while until I can finish editing some of this which was in a total mess from the major edit recently made. Thanks♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 17:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Those sentences were not about Ghana, so they did not belong in that section. They were also uncited, so my deletion of those sentences was totally appropriate and justified. There is no way for me, or any other editor, to guess that you were planning on correcting the problem. I simply saw a mistake and fixed it. Spylab 17:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I know they weren't about Ghana and I wasn't having a go at, or criticising, you for doing so, just asking for patience as if you check the history of the article, it shows how I have been gradually working mainly on the African section this afternoon and slowly moving sentences to appropriate headings. I should have put a note on the talk page to explain what I was doing so that is an error for which I apologise. I have now moved the two sentences into the correct section of the article. The whole article still needs a lot of work doing on it and your edits have gone a long way toward improving it, but I will state again that I wasn't criticising you, just asking for patience. thanks♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 17:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is now a damn site better following your edits and mine adding to the major edit made by User:Chloride even though they are apparently a sock puppet, and the article needs maintaining by editors such as yourself. There is still a long way to go, as some countries entries are still, to say the least, a hell of a mess. England for instance, Russia and so on.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 17:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Trash talk from Morgan Wright

Thanks for trashing the Harry Gibson article, dude. You obviously don't know anything about the artist. I'm very tempted to revert. You did a few things to improve some wording here and there, but mostly you just trashed the whole article, which was written by me and about 2 or 3 other Harry Gibson afficianodos. Adding "cite references" to a song because you never heard it? All you have to do is look it up on napster, dude. The song is called "Get hip to Shirley MacLaine" and it's on the 1989 album. I would not need to tell you all this if you were familiar with the artist's work, but if you are not familiar with the artist then why take it upon yourself to basically re-write a whole article about him? Maybe you should get one or two of his records first. I'm about 80% sure I will just revert tomorrow or the next day. The new version really sucks.Morgan Wright 02:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• I did not trash the Harry Gibson article. I have attempted to bring it up to encyclopedic standards. Perhaps you should familarize yourself with Wikipedia guidlines, such as Wikipedia:Citing sources and The five pillars of Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't just for readers who are familiar with a topic already, otherwise nobody would learn anything by reading it. Wikipedia is for presenting verified facts backed up by reliable sources. Also, please be careful to write your comments on talk pages, not editors' user pages. Spylab 13:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. I mentioned that he did a song about Shirley MacLaine. You said it was probably wrong. I then cited the name of the album it was on. Then you told me to cite a reference proving it was on there. So I made a reference to the TITLE of the song on that album. Then you ask me to cite an outside reference that says the song is really on the album. What the F*&^% is wrong with you? Just get the album yourself and listen to the song. Then maybe familiarize yourself with the artist. You destroyed the article. What you did was basically the same as somebody like me, a person who knows very little about Beethoven, editing an article about Beethoven that was written by Beethoven experts, and asking them to prove that he actually wrote the 9th symphony. You must be out of your mind. I reverted the article. I will go back tomorrow and study some of the changes you made that actually help the article, and rewrite it myself using many of your suggestions. But you heavy-handedly destroyed the article and I must salvage it, since about 4 of us Hipster fans wrote in. Please don't edit it anymore. Let us do it, since we actually know the artist's work. Morgan Wright 02:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Just what I expected, you reverted again. It seems you have a history of starting edit wars. You need to ask yourself why you have all these wars. Maybe it's because people don't like you destroying their articles. I'm going to revert the Harry Gibson artice again but this time with many of the suggestions you made to make it more encyclopedic, and if you revert it back a third time there will be open war.Morgan Wright 10:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hammerskins

What's your problem with this extra-info? Even if there's no direct link, it's additional information I'm sure many people will be interested in. Both times extremist right wing organizations are concerned - the Hammer League was a forerunner of Nazi organizations ... the hammer was used early on in these circles. So why do you insist on removing this info? 217.236.219.126 15:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not "extra info." It's irrelevant trivia. The fact that another group used the term hammer in its name has no legitimate place in an encyclopedic article about Hammerskins. The groups aren't connected in any way, just as West Ham United F.C. (sometimes called "The Hammers", and who have had skinhead fans, like most British football teams) is not connected to Hammerskins in any way. Spylab 16:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism wasnt my doing

I did not personally vandalise the Enoch Powell article and i did check the article itself so i cannot deny that it was done from my account. My username has been misused within a public access network due to my own negligence. The error is regretted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tusharh (talk • contribs) 19:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

• Understood. I merely pressed the "Undo" button when I reverted that bad edit, so in the edit note it automatically wrote the account name that was signed in when that edit was made. Spylab 20:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Reggae

This guy has an inaccurate definition of Reggae and has edited out much accurate input that I have spent much hard work putting in.

I think he should talk to some real experts in the field as he hasn't a clue. He should speak to some of the many live artists that were there when the music was actually invented. Ernest Ranglin and speak to some of the real people who were around in the beggining and who have expert knowledge. How about Lee Perry? I am a producer and sound engineer, you are a blodclut

Look at the official history of Reggae as they will prove you wrong wrong wrong!!!!!!

Read the following and overstand!!!:

Studio One Story DVD/book.

Young, Gifted and Black: The Story of Trojan Records (Paperback) by Michael De Koningh (Author), Laurence Cane-Honeysett (Author)

Bass Culture: When Reggae Was King (Paperback) by Lloyd Bradley (Author)

Tighten Up!: The History of Reggae in the UK (Paperback) by Michael de Koningh (Author), Marc Griffiths (Author)

Dub: Soundscapes and Shattered Songs in Jamaican Reggae (Music Culture): Soundscapes and Shattered Songs in Jamaican Reggae (Music Culture) (Paperback) by Michael E. Veal (Author)

How to Play Reggae Guitar: Complete Guide in Tablature and Standard Notation (CD Pak) (Paperback) by Ray Hitchins (Author)

This is Reggae Music: The Story of Jamaica's Music (Paperback) by Prince Buster (Foreword), Lloyd Bradley (Author)

Reggae Bass with CD (Audio) (Bass Builders) (Paperback) by Hal Leonard Publishing Corporation (Author), Ed Friedland (Author), Friedland Ed (Composer)

Reggae Keyboards (Paperback) by Jimmy Peart (Author)

The First Rasta: Leonard Howell and the Rise of Rastafarianism (Paperback) by Helene Lee (Author), Stephen Davis (Introduction) "When Bob Marley began his reggae crusade in 1972, he came armed not just with the best street poet's songbook since Bob Dylan, but with..." (more)

For now on I will no longer add any edits to any wikipedia articles. This is becasue of d*cks like Spylab.

Many of the articles with therfore really be inaccurate! -Divy!!!

• Feel free to provide specific references (i.e. footnotes) when editing Reggae and other articles to back up your claims, and try to avoid injecting your own personal opinions into Wikipedia articles. Understand that articles will continue to be improved for grammar, organization, factual accuracy and writing style after you make an edit. Do not make personal attacks against other Wikipedia editors or you will be banned. Finally, feel free to sign up for a Wikipedia account instead of using an anonymous IP address from London, England. Spylab 10:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Pop punk started in 1970s, not 1990s

I do not agree with this statement. If you look on the page Pop punk... you'll see that the term wasn't even around until the 80s. In any event... as you may have seen... my larger problem was that bands are being listed as pop punk without one mention of pop punk in their articles. This goes against WP:CAT. I'm not a bearacrat or a deletionist. You may noticed I haven't messed with your update to the Buzzcocks since you worked it into the article.--Dr who1975 01:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Rememeber... just because something is pop and punk... doesn;t make it pop punk. Otherwise Fall Out Boy is a pop punk band.--Dr who1975 02:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

While it bother's my that I have to be the one to tell you what you should do... why don;t you update the Pop punk page... I'd be curious to see what people say (seriously... your updates might get accepted).--Dr who1975 02:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As you know... some people would be very insulted if bands like The Buzzcocks, the Ramones, or the Jam were labeled pop punk.. you have to think about the big picture here. How come you don't mess with Tenpole Tudor, The Damned, Siouxsie & the Banshees, or Bauhaus (band)?!?! Where does punk end and pop punk begin?--Dr who1975 02:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW... I was getting sick of having to monitor this stuff anyway. But you've now made it where any band that is remotely punk and remotely pop is pop punk. You've opened the door to a lot of crap that will make pop punk indistinguishable from pop or punk. I was looking for an excuse to give up on this anyway so thank for giving me one. -Cheers--Dr who1975 22:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have categorized pop punk bands as pop punk bands, and in most cases, provided multiple sources showing that those bands are considered pop punk (in addition to other genres in many cases). Some editors have tried to pretend that certain bands actually aren't considered pop punk punk bands, for whatever reason; probably because of the negative stigma associated with more recent wimpy mainstream American pop punk bands (and bands from other countries that imitate them). However, the fact remains, pop punk started many years before those 1990s bands formed and got mainstream media attention.Spylab 10:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ur-

As you have noted, ur- means "prot(o)-", "first", "oldest", "original" when used with a noun." An ur-text is therefore a proto-text/first text/oldest text/original text. Ur- is not significantly more "German" than much of the rest of the English language--it appears as a conventional prefix in Merriam-Webster's, where one of the examples is urtext. The quoted critic, Sabin, employs the term in a straightforward way. The article on ur- however, could definitely use some improvement.—DCGeist 16:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Madness article

I can see you're currently editting the article, merging sections/ammending grammar, etc. I don't have any problems with this, but I'll wait until you've finished editting until I make any changes myself, as it seems to be conflicting. Sam Orchard 15:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Rock opera

I'm not accusing anyone of vandalism. I'm saying that many good faith edits were made that unfortunately resulted in the loss of much of the article's useful information. I have restored the text to a December version, which is a much better starting place than where it was this morning, and I'm going to go through and try to work on it. The article is almost completely unreferenced. It's fine to say that we don't want too many list on Wikipedia, but if the text of the article is incomprehensible, then at least a list gives one an idea of what is going on. -- Ssilvers 15:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As to Your bad edits and false accusations

As to your note

1. Please do not add huge sections of terrible English spelling and grammar to articles such as Neo-Nazism. 2. Please do not add your biased personal opinions to articles, as you did to that article. 3. Do not make false accusations of vandalism when other editors correct your mistakes, as you did in that article 4. Please sign up for a Wikipedia account instead of using an anonymous IP address to make your edits. Spylab 20:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• the spelling is corrected, the grammar is ok
• biased and pesonal opinion is not a matter here
• do not make false pretext to delete completely legal additions to that section - you are vandalizing this article definitely
• learn that it is quite legal to contribute anonymously -unsigned

• I will repond on your talk page, User talk:72.75.18.173 Spylab 11:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As to your second note on my talk page

I repeat. Do not make false accusations of vandalism, as you did in an edit note in Neo-Nazism, and on my talk page. If you continue to do so, you will be reported to Wikipedia administration and your IP address may be blocked. In response to your unsigned comments on my talk page, the incorrect grammar in your edits to the Croatia section of the Neo-Nazism article has not been corrected to meet proper English standards; not by a longshot. When you add biased comments such as (non-existent) in front of term like Bleiburg massacre, you are adding your personal opinion, which is not acceptable. If that massacre is actually non-existant, than deal with your concerns in the Bleiburg massacre article instead of vandalizing the Neo-Nazism article. Whether your edits are legal is not the issue. The issue is whether your edits follow Wikipedia guidelines and are in the spirit of the Wikipedia community. Spylab 11:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• It is quite apparent that you vandalized the article on several occassions - removal of references and the whole text even in the case where the text was a quite correct quotation
• I did not write the text - I've just tried to correct it - as much as the idle time I had. As to your supposed and epressed knowledge of the English language grammar - my first advice to you - learn the difference between the verb active and pasive states
• As you could see NovaNova added proper reference showing clearly that the 'Bleibirg' did not happen - so make an effort to familiraize with the subject before trying to imply ignorance to somebody else.
• My edits are in full accordance to the Wikipedia guidelines; please, be familiraized fully with these guidelines before trying to demand nonsense
• As to the "you will be reported to Wikipedia administration" be advised that at least ten people warned you about lacking the civilty - when responding to other editors - and the effective knowledge of the subjects you've been editing. So, you might expect experiencing some unpleasant things you are 'recommending' to me - pretty soon. --72.75.18.173 22:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Responded to your false accusations and other comments on your talk page.Spylab 23:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove merger tags

Please don't remover merger tags. If you want to oppose a merger then do it on the respective talk page. You can address the merger for Nordic theory into Fascism here :Talk:Fascism#Merging_Nordic_theory_into_this_article. Don't remove the tag unless consensus is made. Thanks. Rokus01 01:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• I removed the merger tag because the two articles are not about the same topic. Nordic theory is a different topic from fascism. It's possible to have fascism without racism, and not all fascists are "Nordic", or even white.Spylab 01:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on British National Front. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. ~ Wikihermit 02:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken, as the edit history of that article clearly displays. I have made only one reversion, to an edit made by a neo-Nazi sock puppet who has been banned from editing Wikipedia. Spylab 02:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I see two edits in one day. If the guys a sock, contact an admin. I removed the warning. ~ Wikihermit 03:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, follow the valid Wikipedia rules

Please, avoid tagging IP addresses as sock-puppets! You are not a person who can prove who is behind an IP address. Be adviced to contact Wikipedia administration and place a request to a check user!!!

1. 20:39, 23 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:British National Front (warning about neo-Nazi sock puppet editing this article) (top)
2. 20:32, 23 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User:205.236.144.4 (sock puppet template) (top)
3. 20:32, 23 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User:24.201.17.56 (sock puppet template) (top)
4. 20:32, 23 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User:24.203.22.162 (sock puppet template) (top)
5. 20:31, 23 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Laderov (added new IP to the list) (top)
6. 20:30, 23 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User:24.203.217.170 (sock puppet template) (top)
7. 20:29, 23 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:24.203.217.170 (This IP is an sock puppet of a Montreal neo-Nazi who has been banned from Wikipedia)

--Modelsides 19:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• I am correct about that IP user being a sock puppet of a Montreal-based neo-Nazi. He even admitted it on Talk:British National Party, in this edit. I find it very curious that the only post made under the Modelsides account is the above comment on my talk page. Spylab 00:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That IP user has been banned from Wikipedia again. See message on his talk page. Spylab 01:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right! How about this - all anonymous are somenone's puppets? You are the one authorised to mark them that way?

1. 13:59, 16 May 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:87.244.80.169 (sock puppet) (top)

1. 21:40, 10 April 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:24.201.17.56 (sock puppet)
2. 21:35, 10 April 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:24.203.22.162 (sock puppet) (top)
3. 21:34, 10 April 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:EuropeanLynx (sock puppet)
4. 21:33, 10 April 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:ProudAryan (sock puppet)
5. 21:31, 10 April 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:205.236.144.4 (Sock Puppet)

1. 17:31, 8 February 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:209.217.96.177 (→Vandalism to various articles - Last warning due to more vandalism)

1. 04:00, 6 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:71.252.81.35 (sock puppet)
2. 04:00, 6 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:24.57.101.133 (don't use sock puppets) (top)

--Modelsides 22:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note that Modelsides is now banned from Wikipedia.Spylab 01:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note that it has been confirmed that the now-banned account User:Modelsides was a sock puppet account of User:GiorgioOrsini. See IP check results here: IP check.Spylab 12:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Civility and knowledge - at the first place, please

I've noticed your entry in the Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading your claim

1. Ante Starčević - Full of grammar, spelling and formatting errors; as well as blatant POV-pushing. I have corrected a few mistakes, but those corrections will likely be destroyed as soon as they are discovered by certain hostile editors who unjustifiably describe necessary copy editing as "vandalism" (see edit history of Neo-Nazism#Croatia). Spylab 14:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, respond to my questions below

1. (cur) (last) 13:45, 25 June 2007 Spylab (Talk | contribs) (23,191 bytes) (→Footnotes - added cleanup tag because some of the notes are way too long)

Could you, please, tell us how did you calculate that the notes are way too long?

1. (cur) (last) 13:17, 25 June 2007 Spylab (Talk | contribs) (23,155 bytes) (→Literary and linguistic work - corrected grammar & spelling in poorly-translated sentence)

The 'corrected' sentence

It was demonstrated publicly immediately after Karadžić's death - when Croatian Parliament (Sabor) collected a considerable amount of money in order to errect a monument to honor Karadžić in Croatia and the Court chanchellor Ivan Mažuranić got the Viennese Imperial Court to financially support the Karadžić' widow.

is not translation and your 'grammar and spelling correction is welcome - but the text removal - is not! Also, the 'Court' is the correct spelling and not your 'court' - the 'court' here is not definitively a valid knowledge of the contemporary English grammar.

1. (cur) (last) 12:58, 25 June 2007 Spylab (Talk | contribs) (23,202 bytes) (added 2 tags because there are many problems that need to be corrected in this article)
2. (cur) (last) 12:55, 25 June 2007 Spylab (Talk | contribs) m (23,133 bytes) (deleted strange and unnecesssary adjective in intro)

The adjective 'provincial' is correct and necessary - due to the fact that Starcevic was a provincial writer, better say a scribe, whose writtings did not draw any attention of the educated men in the Austro-Hungarian Empire - outside the province of Croatia.

1. (cur) (last) 12:52, 25 June 2007 Spylab (Talk | contribs) (23,144 bytes) (→Literary and linguistic work - deleted totally POV sentence that also had horrible spelling & grammar)

The sentence has some spelling errors - but totally POV is not. As I do understand, from a previous discussion, you've publicly stated that you did not know anything about Croata and were not able to read in or understand Croatian language? So, what makes you to disqualify something you know nothing about???

In his vain and racistic effors to oppose and derail Karadžić's work, he was loner and loser - mainstream of the Croatian educated men, headed by Strossmayer and Gaj, highly appreciated and supported Karadžić.

--Giorgio Orsini 21:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• You obviously don't understand proper English grammar and basic Wikipedia guidelines, especially the one about neutrality. Perhaps you should leave the editing to those who do.Spylab 10:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, avoid ....

...vandalizing the Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading as you did it already twice (here [7] and here [8])

--Giorgio Orsini 22:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• You should not be adding unwarranted and ignorant comments to that page. Removing those comments is not vandalism. Spylab 22:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• • If I see it again - I'll report it immediately - as an incident - to the Wikipedia administration.

--Giorgio Orsini 22:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that Giorgio Orsini has been blocked from Wikipedia for 72 hours for confirmed sock puppetry.Spylab 13:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

wow. just wow.

I am at awe at how much patience you have for Giorgio. I would have snapped within five minutes. - Pandacomics 23:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Starčević

Thanks for the support. From my experience, however, I can tell you there's no easy solution to this problem. I've fought long battles for truth in some articles. When one professional hater gives up, another one will appear soon enough. And don't expect much from the administrators. The haters' behavior is most often not vandalism, just delusional obstinacy. There's one consolation, but it's rather metaphysical: truth will prevail eventually. It's a question of patience. Never give up, that's my motto. --Zmaj 07:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

White Pride/Steelcap Boot

Hi there Spylab - this is Maggie from White Pride/Jorn Barger/jazz albums etc. I'm wondering whether you might consider banning Steelcap Boot, who's making a nuisance of himself, constantly vandalising white pride and adding links to Stormfront. Reverting his edits is becoming exhausting. Thanks. -Maggie --67.71.122.175 15:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have the power to ban accounts, but I can revert his vandalism and report the account to administration if the vandalism continues. Spylab 15:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks. Let's both keep eyes on in case he starts meddling elsewhere. - Maggie --70.50.77.149 02:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Punk in Brazil

If you are looking for an article that deserves a good massage, I recommend "Punk in Brazil". Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)