User:Spylab/User talk:Spylab/archive9
Neutrality
[edit]This edit about the Hambrough Tavern riot doesn't strike me as neutral. The AP news report here says that the Asian youths were attacked by skinheads shouting Neo-Nazi slogans, so your edit to say they were mistaken that it was a Neo-Nazi gathering seems odd. Considering Gary Bushell's recent political positions and his involvement in Oi!, is he really a neutral source on these matters? This source says that skinheads smashed shop windows and shouted racial abuse. This source also notes that the tavern had been sued for barring non-white customers. Can we add some balance into that section? Fences&Windows 02:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Anti-capitalism
[edit]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Anti-capitalism. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-capitalism. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Western Imperium
[edit]An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Western Imperium. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Imperium. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
White pride article
[edit]You've removed quite a large chunk of information on the rationale of total cleanup and re-order, including deleting off-topic content and content not supported by references. However, the content that you've removed seems to be well referenced and relevant to the topic. I'm curious, why did you remove a large part of the 'beliefs' and 'criticism' section? -Oescp (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
It was either off-topic (not about the white pride slogan or movement), not supported by references at all, or had references that didn't actually support the statement.Spylab (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Your Nazism history article edit war against MHazard9.
[edit]Dear Spylab:
Like you, I base my editorial work upon facts and sources, yet, because you do not know something or dislike it does not mean it is wrong. In a history article, FACTS (dates, times, places, and names) matter, because the article must answer the questions: Who? What? Where? When? and Why? without the reader having to go elsewhere for the information promised in the article. That is why the proper noun spellings and accurate translations matter. You are wrong in deciding for the reader that he or she does not need to know those dates; in 2010, most people were not then alive.
Give it a try, let us work together; please, be a mensch and don't cop out with “disruptive editor” canards; our work histories would embarrass you before the authorities; we know what we know, we are history aficionados, most Anglophone readers might not be. Let me know.
Best regards, 17:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Mhazard9 (talk)
Sounds good. I agree that the blog link can get the axe. Nefariousski (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the edit. However blog in general is merely a format, and is not excludable just on that basis. A blog may be authoritative or notable, justifying it's inclusion (IMO). Not the case here. blogreggae.com might well be justifiable in a "Spanish Reggae" article. Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: List of countries by economic system
[edit]Hello Spylab. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of List of countries by economic system, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Try PROD or AfD instead. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Rocker
[edit]I don't know how to resolve the problem with the rocker page but I removed all the year old unreferenced stuff about Bodgies and Widgies where the editor said it belonged. I dare say their is something truth to it at a street level but who knows ...
That page is obviously about rockers, as in "Mods and Rockers", perhaps it needs renaming to something like "rockers (subculture)" versus "rockers (music)" or something. I mean, it is not even "British rockers" now because the movement has gone worldwide. You could have rockers (motorcycling), I suppose. Its weird because I would have thought "rockers" for American rock bands was also a far more common use of the term. --Triton Rocker (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
So what is your reasoning behind removing Ton-up boys etc? --Triton Rocker (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I just checked this article for the first time and, as a former ton-upping 59 club badge wearing type, it reads very well and is brief yet informative. I don't see any reason to move it to plural. It matches well with Mod (subculture). Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Rude boy
[edit]Great job on the cleanup over there. I did some quick reorganization, but was not sure if I wanted to put the time into a big copy-edit. Now, I do not need to worry about it. Thanks.
Regarding the Rocker and Ton-up boys articles, I have more or less given up. The former is still on my watchlist, and I will keep an eye on vandalism, but the subject is a bit too far outside my bailiwick to get involved in large scale content disputes. Good luck. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
ANI (Realwords101)
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (discussion of edits by User:Realwords101) --Michig (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Message added 13:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Conflict news
[edit]Hello! The article The Klan (Belgian band) is attacked again. Greetings Raoniz (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
[edit]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Barbershop?
[edit]I was just about to delete that link myself, but you beat me to it. When I saw that, I was stunned. Who in the world thought that was right? I never cease to be amazed by what ends up on WP. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The Burial
[edit]Hello Mate, heres a link to the quote on which you placed a "citation needed" notice. http://www.myspace.com/theburial/photos/30349575#%7B%22ImageId%22%3A30349575%7D thanks again for all your good work. Plasmajam (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Socialism
[edit]Hello, I just find the English version of Wikipedia confused about socialism. I believe french version of article are clearer, although possibly imperfect. What I dont like in english articles is that different concepts seams to me to be mixed. When I read those English pages I just do not understand what is referred to by socialism: ideology of Party of European Socialists or ideology of Communist Party of China? I just do not know if only those two parties share only any thing with each other.
Might be this socialism page should be renamed, and replaced by a page which link to articles on different meanings of socialism? Same issue occurs with criticism against socialism and possibly other articles related to socialism. Or might be just a line to introduce article to indicate what is the meaning of the term socialism in each article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.89.44.229 (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Random Smiley Award
[edit]
(Explanation and Disclaimer)
♠TomasBat 02:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Semiprotected your userpage...
[edit]Let me know if you want it unprotected... — Scientizzle 21:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The page shown above has been Fully Protected to disallow the constant edit warring that has been occuring for the past few days. This has been in reference to the section "Underground". Your comment to the issue would be welcomed in the hopes that this problem can be resolved. Tartarus talk 02:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
September 2011
[edit]
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Nazism. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.
Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Edits
[edit]Hi,
You recently reverted and listed as spam a whole series of my recent edits. I personally believe this to be unfair, I recently visited the exhibition and I find the Mott collection to be one of the very few resources available for radical left and right cultural ephemera. The recent exhibition at the Turner Contemporary was a significant display of materials pertaining to Margaret Thatcher, RAC, Class War, The Poll Tax Riots, Skrewdriver, Blood & Honor, British Movement, Socialist Workers Party, Psychic TV, Genesis Breyer P-Orridge, Test Dept, Nicky Crane etc there is no reason why an exhibition in a public institution should not be included on those individuals and organisations wiki pages...
Best
Chaosandvoid (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
October 2011
[edit]"Humourous" is a spelling error. Please be more careful when using the "revert" functionality. --John (talk) 04:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- No it isn't. That is the correct spelling in Britain, and the article I corrected was about a British person.Spylab (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The Horror Punk Page
[edit]Hey man. You and I have been going back and forth with the edits on this page. I wasn't trying to force my opinions. The old page just seemed a bit shallow and overall just silly. An example being that the old page said that Christian Death and T.S.O.L. started because they were influenced by The Misfits; which is in no way true. Jack Grisham himself has claimed to hate horror films and Rozz Williams was inspired by glam rock. The page as of now I think is perfect. Its neutral and gives insight into the genre without straying off into other things. Looking at the history I think you were the one who made these last edits and I just wanted to say that I won't be tampering with it any longer as long as it stays credible. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FantasticMrHell (talk • contribs) 05:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Rollback button
[edit]Rollback feature is meant for undoing simple vandalism ONLY. You are constantly violating this rule [1], [2], [3]. There have been a number of cases where the rollback privilege has been withdrawn due to violations. Take care, Estlandia (dialogue) 08:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I am sending this message to all the editors which I believe have been engaged in reversions on this article. Please discuss and gain consensus before removing/adding the section. —Dark 09:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- You have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. —Dark 23:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]I have blocked you for 1 week, per history. I find it hence a pretty blunt statement to say: "Deleted highly disputed POV section because there is no consensus. Anyone who re-adds it is edit warring.". Please consider to stay on the talkpage after your block expires. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Rocker
[edit]Can I ask you something?
I saw your recent addition to the rockers topic about the American terms greaser "crossing over" to the UK but the copy of Oxford dictionary I can look at does not confirm this. It only says,
"British a young person, especially in the 1960s, belonging to a subculture characterized by leather clothing, riding motorcycles, and a liking for rock music."
I obviously agree with the term being used but I disagree that it was a US term crossing over and I wonder what it was you read that supports that? I don't think at the time it had any specific American subcultural value. It was just an obvious descriptive or often derogatory term that had been used for generations before, e.g. on the railways etc. It was more just about the oiliness and greasiness of owning a bike back them.
The topic for the US Greaser (subculture) term does not seem to be well qualified at all. I thought greasers was used for italians and latinos in the US. All it seems to be is a nod the John Travolta movie.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridge Boy (talk • contribs) 10:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't recall adding anything like that. Can you provide a link?Spylab (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Is this it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocker_(subculture)&diff=prev&oldid=470162773
I also think Rocker Reunions should be capitalised as, arguably, it is a proper noun, e.g. one edit was "Rocker Reunion Club". I am not sure they have become generic.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridge Boy (talk • contribs) 1:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't actually add that sentence; only moved it there from another section. I don't really have an opinion on that. I'm not sure about the capitalization issue, but topics this are more appropriate on the article's own talk page, instead of on editors' talk pages.Spylab (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Rocker (subculture)
[edit]Hello, There are dozens and dozens of articles on rockers in Spanish and Portuguese, and some in other languages The rocker subculture is just a biker subculture in the United Kingdom, Japan and Australia, and not in Other countries. I did much research to know that. I think, the subculture is the same, but three in These Countries is a subculture centered on motorcycles and classic rock and all Other countries is Focused on rock music in general and not Focused on motorcycles. If it was another subculture, we'd have to rename the article to "rocker biker subculture" and make a new article to the name "rocker subculture" to the rockers of several and various countries. But for me rocker is rocker. is the same subculture. ~ ~ ~ ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisehelp (talk • contribs) 01:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The Punk Fashion page
[edit]I am the one that added the section you deleted. It's not actually "unreferenced", the quotes I added were from songs of two major punk bands. I can't speak english the right way because I'm french, but you could correct me instead of deleting the new section. 88.176.241.70 (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)