User:Spylab/User talk:Spylab/archive7
Mod (lifestyle)
[edit]Mightn't it make sense to move this article to Mod (subculture), since it is the subculture that is being described? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Edits to list of punk bands
[edit]Please stop removing the lead section from the lists of punk bands. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists says in the "Lead and selection criteria" section that "Lists should begin with a lead section that presents unambiguous statements of membership criteria. […] Even if it might 'seem obvious'". The article's title, "list of punk bands", is ambiguous, however, since it can be interpreted (at one end of the spectrum) as groups who strictly play punk rock, or instead (at the other end of the spectrum), to also include groups who implement some elements of punk rock or its subgenres or fusion genres. (Additionally, your commented-out inclusion criteria won't work since many editors will use section editing to add/modify entries, and so will never even see it there.)
The inclusion criteria you removed twice does not attempt to describe what punk music is, nor how it and its subgenres sound, nor how the subgenres emerged from the punk subculture. In other words, a spurious mention of these subgenres does not qualify as an attempt to turn this list into an article. Anything appearing in the lead is largely or entirely summarized from information in the punk rock article.
I will assume you are familiar enough with Wikipedia to know that Wikipedia guidelines take precedence over one's personal idea of how things should be. If you don't like the guidelines, you can try to modify them. However, I don't think many others will agree that it is helpful to remove statements which reduce ambiguity. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I saw your edits to Stark. Would you consider restoring some of the comedy discussion? Ben Elton is most notable as a comedy writer, and the book is notable at least partly because it is a comedy. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Pop Punk
[edit]Hi, I noticed you removed a couple of paragraphs I added to the pop punk entry which were about the underground pop punk scene and how it split from mainstream pop punk. I can understand that they were uncited so may be problematic, I'm hoping to actually compile a few sources over the Christmas vacation when I can get access to my stack of punk 'zines, but you also said theat the content wasn't about neutral facts. I actually thought I wrote pretty neutral stuff about a contentious issue in pop punk (ie. selling out, mainstream vs independent culture). I was wondering if you could tell me what specifically you though wasn't neutral and why so I could have a go at a re-write. I think this issue ought to be address in the pop-punk section because at the moment it looks like a sales history for Green Day and Blink 182 and I'd like to get away from that. Suckers_intl_has_gone_public (talk) 11.02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Why are you editing other editors wihtout explanation?
[edit]In the "Liberal Fascism" Wiki page, you rolled back my edit to provide context to some inflammatory reviews without discussion or reasoning. I am new to Wiki and perhaps you have some Godly powers to autocratically and unilaterally change other edits without debate. No wait, that would be a form fascism.
So can you please explain why you edit a page whose original purpose was to meet the Five Pillars of Wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.104.145 (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- I explained it the first time I reverted it. I deleted the uncited comments that were written with terrible grammar.Spylab (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
question
[edit]how well do you know the academic literature on subcultures? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thnks, Slrubenstein | Talk 01:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Left-wing politics
[edit]Why do you want the lead changed to include social and modern liberalism as left-wing in the world outside the US? If you follow the link to social liberalism, it states: "Social liberal parties in Europe tend to be centre-left parties, although there are social liberal parties across the political spectrum." If you follow the links to individual parties throughout the world, they are mostly described as centrist. Some of these would be described as "conservative" in the US. Usually they are small parties in competition with larger parties on the left and right. If you follow the link to modern liberalism, it refers to the US. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Response on the left-wing politics discussion page.Spylab (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you please provide a source for your position on left-wing politics. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Response to be at User talk:The Four Deuces. - Spylab (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I had written the following at the discussion page:
- Again, there must be a source for this assertion. In "European Politics into the Twenty-First Century: Integration and Division" by Hans Slomp (2000), social liberalism and Christian Democracy are at the center of the political spectrum. You can see the Nolan chart from this book in the Political spectrum article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European-political-spectrum.png
- I accept that their are different views, but the academic consensus is that social liberals are at the center of the political spectrum. They even call themselves centrists, e.g., the Centre Party (Sweden).
I'm just saying that you should provide an academic source for the assertion that social liberalism is part of the left, because that does not appear to be a generally accepted point of view. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Marxian economics
[edit]The references are to Capital, and are given in parentheses at various places in the text, especially in the boxed supporting quotations. -- User:Gonji ha January, 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC).
Citations?
[edit]Is a FAQ on www.faq.org accepted as an appropriate source for the wikipedia? -Alex.rosenheim (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Waves of Ska?
[edit]Why not use the three waves of ska as an organizational tool for the History of Ska? The term "waves" are pretty well established as classifications of the different periods of ska. I really think it helps to organize the article.
This all started when I read an article about Bad Manners and it called it a "Ska Revival" band. As there have been two ska revivals each with a slightly different flavor, I thought it important to distinguish its place in the 2nd wave in particular.
By the way...I understand the removal of the term "Bad in Plaid". When it had been described to me, 2-Tone referred to blending black and white culture while plaid referred to blend ALL cultures. But I do not have any documentation for that perception. -Alex.rosenheim (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Response at User talk:Alex.rosenheim - Spylab (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Fascism
[edit]If you look back two or three years, you will see that several very fine editors have made good contributions o this article. I suggest you identify and contact them to seek a wider range of comments on the recent edits. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
RfC?
[edit]I see you have been arguing with User:Collect tedious edits on fascism, as many, many editors have. Would you endorse an RfC against User:Collect? He has been edit warring at both Joe the Plumber and Business Plot, using the same tired tactics to revert well referenced material. Ikip (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- WP:CANVASS Collect (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Courtesy message.
- It appears like you were discussed at length here, in an invitation for another editor to join an edit war you were involved in. Ikip (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
No worries
[edit]I figured that's what had happened! Nouse4aname (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Northern soul
[edit]Why do you consider the list of information contained in the Influence on popular music and culture section to be miscellaneous? Does it not serve to demonstrate the influence and affect that the music and associated culture has had on the mainstream? Without the supporting facts, the introductory statement becomes simply a personal opinion.
Also, why did you remove the extract from Northern Soul Top 500? Isn't the point of writing for Wikipedia that you have to assume that the reader knows nothing about the subject? Obscure recordings are not an optional part of the Northern soul scene, they are the reason it exists. As per the discussion page, it was and is considered important to name some of the recordings in this article. To ensure this was properly referenced, I added a list extracted from the only comprehensive published study of the subject.--Lebkuchenteile (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Response and subsequent discussion now at Talk:Northern soul.Spylab (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
RfC User:Collect
[edit]This is to inform you that I have mentioned you in an RfC re: User:Collect. See: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Collect#User:The Four Deuces comments re: Fascism article. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)