User:Spylab/User talk:Spylab/archive1

Punk template

Hey, just to say I've reverted your removal of the 'other topics' section on {{Punk}}. Please see the discussion page there for my reasonings. --MilkMiruku 21:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Re: Free Dominion. Please read Wikipedia:Citing_sources. Thank you. --Cyberboomer 01:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The Free Dominion forum is full of examples of hateful and violent messages. There are messages like that almost every day. Besides, a link to a particular thread might end up being useless later on, because the moderators have a habit of deleting entire threads that turn out to be embarassing.

SH Subculture

I think it's time to start a separated article called "List of SH websites", like books and films. Can you create it? Vugluskr 10:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• I prefer just to edit articles, not to start them. Besides, I haven't seen any Wikipedia articles that are just lists of websites. That might be because websites often go down, and because there are a lot of substandardǑ websites out there.Spylab 11:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Nazi punk

Great work cleaning up the Nazi punk article. I'll continue to help out any way I can. User:BoredAndViolent

Nazi-Skinheads

Nice cleanup job. I know we had our disagreement earlier on punk ideology, but I like what you did with this page. The Ungovernable Force 17:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Pop punk

Skylab, said at the top of the page, This article or section is currently being developed or reviewed. Again, please use the talk page before you make any sweeping edits. The article does need to be closer to wikipedia standards, but I think in this case you might have deleted too much information. Please make the revert yourself and bring up specific points on the talk page. Xsxex 13:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I did use the talk page, and you even responded to what I wrote there.Spylab 15:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

• The changes were reflective of the material which was deleted by you and others, I was surprised to see even Deathrocker reverted the article after your deletions. If you want to discuss it on a point by point case thats cool and there is a section at the top of this talk page to do so. I'd recommend going through the article and making a list of points. However, the article will be reverted back to it's prior edit. I don't see why categories "must" be listed at the bottom of the page. However when I revert I will display both ways. If you want to contest it, right it with one of your points. Also, was it your intention to delete references? Please be more careful when you edit. Thanks. Xsxex 16:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• What are unjustified changes? In what way have you justified your changes? Xsxex 17:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Point taken, however, you forgot the BLARING SIGN at the top of the page which says, THIS ARTICLE IS ACTIVELY BEING DISCUSSED. Instead of engaging in discussion, you merely made changes as you saw fit, which is not how things are done on wikipedia. Instead, you should bring up each point if it is more than a minor edit. response? Xsxex 17:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Spylab, how can we include the section about 'definition' & 'description'? Right now, it doesn't include it. The way it was written before needed editing, but there should be something there that explains these two uses. Xsxex 17:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• What do mean by definition vs. description? What's the difference between the two? I've never seen that as a heading in a Wikipedia article .Spylab 18:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

• the difference between definition and description helps readers understand that the term pop punk is used in two very different ways. This should help clear up some of the confusion surround the term. The whole "def vs. des" issue was highlighted in top section of the pop punk talk page. Like i said, the was it was written may not have been the best, but i think its important to explain the difference between the two uses. How can this be done? Xsxex 18:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• That means there are two definitions, not "definition vs. description". I had solved that issue with my heading "Alternative definition." Spylab 18:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

• Not satifactory. There are two USES not two definitions. The defintion remains the same, "a band that combines catchy musical qualities of the original punk movement with trends in contemporary pop music." Therefore, according to that definition how can the original punk bands be called pop punk. Well actually they could, because you could say they combined the punk sound (which they exemplified) with the pop music of their time. But, there has to be a distinction, it is a retroactive description, not a definition. Those original punk bands are defined as punk rock bands. Again, how can they be also defined pop punk? We need a better way to say it. I dont think "alternate definition" works. Xsxex 18:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• You might want to check a dictionary and a thesaurus. The words "definition" and "description" mean pretty much the same thing. I'm really not sure what you're getting at. Spylab 18:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

• There is a difference. The definition is a set of words that describes a thing. The words that describe the thing are different than the thing they are describing. Thus pop punk can define a band, and pop punk can describe a band. Specifically if members of a band or the media calls a band (blank) then you have a reference and a definition. If only the media or just fans or detractors call a band (blank) then that is a description. Since you removed the from the first sentence, am I to understand that you accept the given definition of the term pop punk. "Pop punk is a fusion genre that combines the catchy attributes of some of the original punk rock groups with trends in contemporary pop music." If so, then explain how a band can be pop punk before the word was used in the late 80s? Xsxex 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• You are confused about the meanings of the words description and definition. The "Alternate definition" section clearly articulates the issue you're talking about, of bands being labelled pop punk after the fact. Also, I didn't remove the "citation needed message", although I forgot to put it back when you incorrectly replaced it with a footnote number.Spylab 19:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

• Spy, cool thanks for looking over the pop punk article. Yeah, you definitely made some good improvements, and cut out some unnecessary items. A few point though, just to re-check. (1) I'm going to put back some of the bands in the independent pop punk section. They'll be alphabetized. It's important to put them on and have a good solid list. Especially if you are ok with the longer sized list in contemporary section. (i did like how you said, "2003 and later". Also, are there recommendations as to how long lists should be? Maybe we can use that to justify our edits. (2) I have been using (;) semicolons to separate the introduction in a sentence from a list of three or more items. Is that correct? I learned that in English class but maybe its not correct here. Let me know. I Noticed you left some (;)'s and deleted others. Okay, yeah lets just keep going. I think the article is getting a lot better. One section which we dont have at all, would be a section describing the actual music and characteristics of pop punk. Like the chords, the chord progressions, the drums, things like that. Xsxex 15:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure if there's a magic number for how long lists should be, but

I just left the more well-known bands in the "Independent" section. Maybe you could start a second sentence for the other bands, beginning with something like "Other lesser-known buzzpop bands include..." To answer about punctuation at the beginning of lists, if anything it shoud be colons (:), not sem-colons (;). Colons are only really necessary before long lists (again, I don't know if there's a magic number). As for which ones I left and which ones I deleted, some I might not have noticed, and in other situations I judged it based on things like what words came before the list, and how the sentence ended. Some of it's a matter of opinion, and I just did what I thought looked right.Spylab 15:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Anti-Heros

Thanks for your messages. I was looking through your contributions to try to see the article you were talking about, and I couldn't. Never mind.

1. On the page you are interested in, add something like <!-- The proper spelling of the band is Anti-Heros. Please don't edit it to Anti-Heroes. Thanks. -->
2. You can sign and datestamp talk posts by typing four tildes, like this. ~~~~

Nice to see another person interested in punk and football! Happy editing, --Guinnog 13:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info. The band name in question is in the Skinhead article, and was changed by the User:Spellmaster account, which leads to your acccount.Spylab 14:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

In that case I apologise for what seems to have been a mistaken edit on my part. I'm glad to see you've made the edit I suggested, which should prevent future editors making the same mistake I did. Best wishes. --Guinnog 14:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but I was just looking through my albums and found AMERICAN PIE by The Anti-Heroes, and it is spelled "Heroes" not "Heros". It is the same band no? L0b0t 22:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, that's the same band, but if the cover says that, it is a misprint. If you type Anti-Heroes Oi! into Google, the hits that come up show that the band is spelled Anti-Heros. Amazon.com spells it Anti-Heroes, but if you look at the picture of the CD cover, there is no letter "E". http://www.amazon.com/American-Pie-Anti-Heroes/dp/B000000EV8 Spylab 22:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Bad use of speedy deletion

Concerning Coffee Punk, your speedy deletion tag was removed because the arguments you laid out don't follow any of the criteria for speedy deletion (they don't come close, actually). You might want to read Wikipedia:Introduction to Deletion Process, which will give you a better idea of what the different deletion processes are and how to use them. In this case, I changed your speedy tag to a WP:PROD tag with the same reason you gave; I don't have an opinion one way or another, I'm just trying to help you do what you wanted to do. Mangojuice^talk 16:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link. Wikipedia doesn't make it very easy to find out how to do things like choosing the proper messages. The Help section isn't very user-friendly.Spylab 17:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Template:Socialism sidebar

Why are you so keen to delete the Politics portal link at the bottom of the template? Socialism is, after all, an important subject in political science. You also deleted the little links that allow editors to view, edit, and discuss the template instantly. I don't understand how you could say that two little words and a few even smaller letters at the bottom of the template are causing clutter. Why are you on this campaign to delete useful links, and why do you disregard the opinions of Red Deathy and me?

By the way, I did not accuse you of deleting an article. I said, "He has deleted links in all sorts of socialism-related articles, for spurious reasons, against Wikipedia guidelines, and against the consensus." So before you defame people by accusing them of lying, make sure you haven't misread something. Moreover, please read WP:VANDAL before accusing people of vandalism. Thanks.

-- WGee 02:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• None of the other political templates that I've seen have links to articles or portals or whatever about general politics. They only have links about the specific topic that the template is about. I didn't realize that I deleted little links that allow editors to access the template instantly. That was an error. I'm not deleting useful links. I'm deleting redundant and irrelevant links. I agree that I misread the post about deleting links. However, I have not deleted anything "for spurious reasons, against Wikipedia guidelines, and against the consensus." That is not the truth, which in other words is a lie.Spylab 03:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

They're not lies; they're perfectly reasonable assertions that several editors would agree with. Calling people's assertions "lies" is a violation of WP:CIVIL, and it won't do much to advance your cause. Even if you disagree with what I'm saying, use less inflammatory language. -- WGee 03:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the big deal about one link, anyway? I don't know why you are so seemingly aggravated by the issue, insofar as to call me names. -- WGee 03:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Who are these imaginary "several editors" that you keep on bringing up? I could say the exact same things in reverse, that you are making edits "for spurious reasons, against Wikipedia guidelines, and against the consensus" and it would carry just as much weight. I could also ask you why this is such a big deal. The reason I'm against having long lists of links and garish multi-coloured boxes in See Also sections is that it looks like a mess and people will skip over it anyway. Spylab 13:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

User:Red Deathy disapproved your mass deletion, saying, "I think it should remain, but perhaps should be editted [sic] a little to keep to the top of the tree. . ." (my emphasis) User:Yossarian also disapproved your edits, saying: "Why is the politics portal being deleted? That's not redundant." Thus, three people oppose your deletions, and nobody apparantly supports them. That is the consensus to which I'm referring.

Curiously, you are the only person to date to have said that a simple list of bulleted links "looks like a mess". Furthermore, that you don't like the look of a template is not a just reason to remove it from an article. I've already told you that if the template is not to your artistic taste, complain on the template's talk page. And, once again, templates must be included in the articles that they mention; it's common sense. Ultimately, the opinions of three editors hold more weight than your own, so please stop attempting to control articles. -- WGee 02:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, two whole people agreed with you (partially) in regards to two totally separate edits in two totally separate articles/templates. Such an overwhelming "consensus".Spylab 13:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

No personal attacks please

In this edit summary [1], you called me a "repeat offender", for no apparant reason.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

-- WGee 03:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Punkabilly

Wasn't Punkabilly listed for deletion? Looks like someone recreated the page. WesleyDodds 06:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it was listed, and was in fact deleted by an administrator. The previous version was only one sentence long, with a list of bands that could also be classified as psychobilly or simply punk rock. The new version has more substance, but I haven't read through it to see if convincingly makes case that it's a different genre from psychobilly. I suppose it should be left for now and see what happens.Spylab 13:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Please refrain from personally attacking editors

You incivilly accused me of having a "reading problem": [2].

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

-- WGee 19:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Blue-eyed soul

Great Job on the article! It was high time someone cleaned up that mess. Mrbluesky 18:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. After I started, I realized that I had already made many of the improvements, but someone reversed them without explanation.Spylab 18:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Deprod

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Category:Reggae by nationality, which you proposed for deletion, because the page you proposed for deletion was not an article. If you still feel the page should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it, as proposed deletion is only for articles. Instead, consider using WP:CFD for this page. In some cases, a speedy deletion criterion may apply. Thanks! GRBerry 00:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Nationalistic

Ya learn something new every day. I stand corrected.L0b0t 21:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

personal attacks

Which personal attacks? What do you mean? Thanks Mitsos 08:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

AMA Request

The AMA is not a group of administrators, and it sounds to me like you may wish to seek sysop help. The AMA can help with your content dispute, but I don't think that's the big problem here. For now, I've closed you case, but if you want it re-opened or want additional help, contact me on my talk page. Regards, \/\/slack (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Category:Street Punk

Your recent edit to Category:Street Punk (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 01:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• It was a legitimate edit, that should not have been reversed. Someone had pasted an article into the category, so I deleted the article.Spylab 15:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Your edit's

Your edits seems to very pushy you will revert articials numberious time to push accross your pov .Please refrain from mutliple edits where discussion would do (Gnevin 16:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

• My edits are based in factual accuracy , not point of view. I have deleted unverified claims based on point of view. You can see my comments about specific topics on the appropriate discussion pages.Spylab 16:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Football Firm

You just broke WP:3RR on the football firm article. I suggest you revert your latest edit there back to the previous state, or I'll have to report you. – Elisson • Talk 20:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• My edit is 100 percent justified. The title of the article is clearly Football firm, so the article must reflect that. If you want to discuss firms associated with other sports like hockey, either put that information in the Hooliganism article or change the title of this article to Hooligan firm. Otherwise the title will be innaccurate and the article will be confusing.Spylab 20:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

• • You obviously do not understand my point. The article is named Football firm only because someone (probably from the British Isles) started the article, but as firm is a dab page, he/she decided that football firm was a good title. However, that person did not know that some firms in some countries do not always support a football club. Thus, it is the title that should be changed, and not the content of the article. The solution to the problem is not to remove content. And no matter how much you think your edit is justified, you still broke 3RR. Go read the policy page, go back and revert your edit, or I will report you. – Elisson • Talk 21:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Fine, then I'll change the title to Hooligan firm, because I'm not going to revert to an innacurate form of the article. I hope you'll help fix all the links that went to Football firm.Spylab 21:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

• You make the move, you fix the double redirects. And revert your edit to the intro while you're at it. – Elisson • Talk 21:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• I changed the title to Hooligan firm and re-added the old version of the opening sentence (with minor adjustments for accuracy). I'm not going to change all the links that went to Football firm yet because I want to make sure nobody's going to change the title back to Football firm. Also, Wikipedia keeps locking the database today because of upgrades. If someone changes the title back to Football firm, then the article should only mention football, regardles of the 3 R rule, dab, or whatever other procedures you want to invoke. The bottom line is that the title needs to reflect what the article is about. Spylab 22:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Skinhead article

Hi, sorry for my "over the top" note that the article was "filled with weasel words". I was feeling frustrated with the way some Wikipedia articles (especially on arts/cultural topics) tend to have editor opinion/original research which is dressed up in weasel words and bold, unattributed claims. ..................For example, an editor will love the album Crazed Punkx on the Loose (silly hypothetical example). Then the editor tells us that "Crazed Punkx on the Looseis the most influential and important album in the Punk Rock genre, which has been praised by numerous critics, and helped to cement their reputation as the best punk band in the world." Sometimes there are entire paragraphs in articles which are 100% made-up blather like this!! By the way, I have had a go at editing out some of the weasel words and POV claims from the Pop Punk article.......Also, on a related topic....I believe that when an issue is uncertain or unclear, Wikipedia should say so upfront; yet other editors prefer to boldly assert their believed version. For example, the article on George Orwell's book 1984 used to have a long laundry list of theories on where the title came from. I proposed starting out by admitting that "...The origin of the title is not known.." and then doing a quick summary of the theories.Nazamo 16:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Third-wave of ska move

Hi there, it seems you didn't follow the steps on Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Steps_for_requesting_a_page_move when reqesting move for Third-wave of ska, so I just delisted the request from Wikipedia:Requested_moves. Please list it again if you still wish to execute the move. Regards, Dijxtra 17:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

hXc Punk Article

I did a basic edit of the page today, please feel free to tweak.

Hardcore Punk edits

I ought to have signed in earlier, but I lost my password eons ago -- will change it and get back into action...

Salese (or the Salese groupie) destroyed hours of careful edits with his last blanket revert, most in sections totally unrelated to his little vanity project. You could say I'm extremely pissed.

The idea of a Salese groupie seems extremely unlikely, btw.

• Yes, I agree that it's unlikely that someone is adding the content, but I didn't want to make direct accusations without proof. I was sceptical when I first read the Salles/Ism tale, since I had never heard of either of them before. When I saw the comments about it in the hardcore punk discussion section, I really became doubtful about the truth of the story, expecially since there are no reliable outside sources confirming the claims.Spylab 18:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Why do the facts about Ism bother you so much that you delete them? You continue to write about a false interview which does not exist in that book and change the chronological order on the hardcore site in which things happened. Why do you want to re-write history. Sorry but I'm not a groupie but someone who was there and would like an accurate record of what happened.

• The so-called "facts" are not backed up by any reliable documented proof. Wikipedia doesn't have to publish everything you say is true. I have not written about any interview. You are confused. you are the one trying to rewrite history. I know you are a groupie using one of your many sock puppets. If you do not stop your blatant vandalism, you will be banned according to Wikipedia procedures.Spylab 19:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Spylab

If there's something incorrect in the article, re: the interview you mention (I don't know what this is), please correct THAT thing, without adding or subtracting or tampering with OTHER things, which people have worked very hard to write and edit. Auto movil 20:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

=

Regarding this most recent addition:

"This was the first ever commercial airplay of hardcore in the metropolitan NY area. The show featured many of the local bands playing at A7, an after-hours dive bar which was a regular hangout to the early NYC pioneers of the hardcore movement. Hurchalla points out that Jism and Salese 'had hopes of bringing hardcore into the mainstream' but 'many of the new bands wanted to eradicate any taint of older punk from their sound....'"

WLIRs 1/2-hour 'Midnight Riot' program played ISM and some of the other bands on Rotten To The Core -- specifically Butch Lust & the Hypocrites, specifically "Smashed Rats." The show was mostly The Clash, GBH, Motorhead, PiL, etc.

Auto movil 20:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit war etc.

Thanks for the note, this isn't plain vandalism so see:

Regards: Rich Farmbrough, 21:51 3 October 2006 (GMT).

I would have no compunction about blocking this individual, in fact I've both welcomed and warned him on his user page, and left a warnings on at least one of his IP pages. However I don't like to block after the final warning unless vandalism recurs. If he vandalises again, let me know, or relist on the intervention page. You could list on 3RR now. Rich Farmbrough, 22:57 3 October 2006 (GMT).

my revert

Sorry for reverting that, I didn't realize what it was at first ST47Talk 21:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Crack Rock Steady 7

Hello, I transferred your WP:PROD on Category:Crack Rock Steady 7 to WP:CFD, because PROD does not handle categories due to special processing requirements. 132.205.93.148 00:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

hardcore punk cite

Alas, I can't get the citation thing to work.

Here's [3] a cite for Tim Sommer of 'Noise the Show' on WNYU. It later became 'Oi! The Show,' as seen in the WNYU article. Auto movil 18:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, can you help add a couple cites for the cite-needed tags? I've been doing SalleseWatch '06, and am still having trouble with the tags.

Here's an MP3 of The Middle Class' "Out of Vogue": http://www.kbdrecords.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/01-middle%20class%20the-out%20of%20vogue-1978-USA.MP3

...And a cover scan showing the release date: http://www.btinternet.com/~thisispunkrock/ps/us/4/middle.htm Auto movil 19:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have to leave my computer for awhile, and I think it would be better to wait a bit to add the citations anyway, because they might get deleted if the back & forth edits continue.Spylab 19:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Pro-white, white-power, neo-nazi punk bands on white pride

Thanks for that. I missed it when I was reverting all the rest of that guy's apologistic changes in wording. -Maggie --70.48.204.106 14:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits to White Supremacy

Hi. I apologize for wrongly attaching your username to that comment at Talk:White supremacy#Changes to Lede.2C Sep 2006. (I got confused when reading my Watchlist. Do-oh! Sorry.)

Thanks for your edits to White supremacy. You've improved it a lot. However, I have undone some of your edits. I'll explain on the talk page once I've gotten some more sleep.

(BTW, adding {{sprotect}} does not protect a page. See Template:Sprotect. We could request semi-protection via WP:RFPP. I've done that before, for the Glenn Greenwald article.)

Cheers, CWC(talk) 19:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I've worked on bits of the article over the last few months, but I'm not energetic enough to tackle all its problems. One thing I've tried to do is make it clear that the White Supremacists have no coherent idea of what "white" means and who the "whites" are superior too. I think I noticed you advocating a similar approach on the Talk:White people page.

Incidentally, the sprotect tag has no effect in itself. The protection is set in the database record describing the article, not in the article content. When an administrator changes an article's protection, you get an edit summary like this one. I don't find the level of vandalism at White supremacy all that troublesome, but if you want to request semi-protection I'd be glad to help out.

Regards, CWC(talk) 03:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Broke 3RR

Hi, I thought I better leave a notice here as well about you breaking 3RR on Hooligan firm. See also Talk:Hooligan firm. – Elisson • T • C • 21:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• No I didn't. My edits were different each time. You might have broken the 3RR rule though, but I'm not petty enough to check.Spylab 21:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Spylab

RFC: Punknyc

Alas, I've had to write up an RFC for the Bob-Sallese user re: the Hardcore Punk article. It needs two people to certify it -- can you add your signature?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/PUNKNYC

Auto movil 23:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Dag, sorry to hear it. What article was it?

The RfC will still be here tomorrow, although it has an expiration date of 48 hours unless two editors endorse it. If there were some other way to get the guy to stop being an Energizer Bunny of POV content, I'd sure prefer it to filing an RfC. It seems there isn't, though. Auto movil 06:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Skinhead problems

Good Hello. User:Mitsos is removing any reference to black skinheads with edit comments saying skinheads are a white subculture and there were no black skinheads in the 1960s. Just thought you might want to take a look. Cheers. L0b0t 12:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I've chatted with him before. He seems quite nice and many of his edits are consructive and on point. You are correct however about the revisionism that occasionaly creeps into his work. A shame really as these are subjects that desperatly need some encyclopaedic attention. Cheers. L0b0t 16:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

date formatting/Wikipedia norms

Please help me understand what you mean by "Wikipedia norms" when you delink dates. How to edit a page disagrees with you (look under date formats, just above Images), as does the Manual of Style page on Dates. -- nae'blis 20:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. With regard to the SHARP article, I was going to leave you a note about how user-preferences for the display of dates work in Wikipedia. I see that Nae'blis has already covered that, though. You should take a look at those links Nae'blis gave you. Lonewolf BC 00:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Vespa external link to www.Vesparesources.com Forum

Hi there. The external link I posted on the Vespa article linking to an Italian website and forum was deleted. This website is devided into three language sections and includes also a forum in english I moderate and everyone is more than welcome to come and post their questions in english and will definitely get an answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vespa&diff=82609587&oldid=82570028 this is the link to the comparing page. On the homepage is clearly indicated by three flags how to switch between languages. I put the link back on the article clearly stating how to switch languages on the homepage how suggeste by you on your explanation. This website is a mine of free downloads for enthusiasts and most of the manuals are in english. Many thanks and best regards

Race-based articles

• "Ok, we get it. You don't think race exists. I also agree that race is a largely artificial concept based on social and political constructs. However articles such as Caucasoid race are supposed to document previously-used concepts. The word Caucasoid was invented by people in academia, not by random people on the street. The fact that the concept has been proven false doesn't change the fact that it used to be a commonly accepted term within academia. There's already a sentence explaining the AAA position about race. There's no reason to repeat it twice with different wording. Spylab 18:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)"

Whether or not I believe race exists is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is what the mainstream authorities on anthropology have to say about the issue. I am all for the article exploring the historical development of the term. I want the article to explore how the term has been used and has changed over time. But you are mistaken if you think that early anthropologists weren't all 'armchair anthropologists'. Extensive rigorous field work didn't start happening until Malinowski. -Psychohistorian 18:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• "*I'm not arguing with that. My point is that Wikipedia articles are supposed to fit a certain format. First you succinctly define the topic, expand on that definition, and then explore the criticisms, exceptions and variations after that. There also should not be repetition of similar statements using different wording. If a sentence or paragraph is written properly, the point will get across clearly the first time. Spylab 19:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)"

I agree with that, but explaining that race is socially constructed, not biologically constructed is part of "succinctly define the topic". The topic is the social construction of race as exhibited in the argument of craniofacial types.-Psychohistorian 11:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to votespam here but you might be interested in this AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/West_african_type as it is the most contentious debate on race articles I've seen yet. Cheers. L0b0t 14:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Breakdown

Hey, I notice you moved the (currently nominated for deletion) Breakdown (-core) to Breakdown (music term). There's already a page at Breakdown (music), which kinda precludes having something at Breakdown (music term). Imo it would have been better to wait for the AfD to finish, failing that be bold and merge the contents which is the likely result of the AfD anyway. Deizio talk 21:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Hey. I noticed you moved Korova to Korova (disambiguation), and have recently moved also several other disambiguation pages from "XYZ" to "XYZ (disambiguation)", with reasons such as "clarified that it's a disambiguation page" and "added disambiguation descriptor". However, the (disambiguation) should only be used when necessary — for primary topic cases only. Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming conventions. I have reverted some of these moves now. Drop me a line, please. Prolog 12:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply

1. One form of music is from the 1970s, the other isn't. They're unrelated forms from different scenes. You removed it because you like to try and control articles which you edit... I seem to remember a similar situation before where you blanked sources on that article.

2. The Damned have NOT being a gothic rock band at the same time as punk rock. You are uneducated on the band, orginally they were a punk rock band. And then from the Black Album onwards they began experimenting with gothic rock music styles. The last album was Gothabilly. At all times they have played a form of rock music.

Also "goth" is not a genre of music. "Goth" is a follower of gothic rock (the name of the genre) bands. You are also going against concencus on the article. - 19:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)