User:Spylab/User talk:Spylab/archive5

Congratulations!

Congratulations on exposing Modelsides as a sockpuppet of GiorgioOrsini and making everybody's life easier. Keep up the good work! --Zmaj 13:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Banned Montreal Nazi

Do you have a name for the master of this sock? (helpful in reverting his damage), SqueakBox 16:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

See http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Laderov. Note, the latest sock puppet IP has been banned from Wikipedia for three months.[1]Spylab 16:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Spylab, I realise that protected versions of pages are not endorsed, but I am concerned that the protected version preserves the preferred version of the sockpuppet of a banned neo-Nazi whose version is rejected by all other editors. He has no incentive to build consensus if his version is preserved by the protection. I am hoping you will contest this protected version. Paul B 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ustaše (lead)

As worded the lead is wrong in two respects, and no amount of dictionary definitions would make it right. Most of the books/websites referenced in the article support this contention; none (except the New American Dictionary - some source!) contradicts it.

1) The Ustaše did not rule "Croatia" but an illegal (not recognised even by the Vatican) entity, the borders of which bore little relation to what had long been known, and is known now, as Croatia. The territory comprised part of Croatia, all of Bosnia-Herzegovina and part of Serbia - as spelt out in detail lower in the article. In place of ruled Croatia it would be better to say ruled in part of Yugoslavia (see below) after the Axis powers occupied that country.

2) It is wrong to say the Germans supported the Ustaše. This implies that the German role was subordinate, and an inference could be drawn that the Germans were party to Ustaše objectives such as the eradication of Serbs. For these reasons I have previously edited to say that the Ustaše ruled under German protection which is unambiguous and surely beyond contention.

There should be no problem about dropping the dictionary definition. The stuff about Ustaše status before and after WW2 is well documented in the works cited, is not contested and could not be protected by copyright.

I don't mind fighting my points with other editors but would not want to provoke you to intervene again, as you seem to have teeth. -Kirker 12:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Will respond on Kirker's talk page. Spylab 12:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, avoid further Neo-Nazism article vandalization

Read carefully [2]

--NovaNova 21:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Spylab, per checkuser NovaNova and GiogioOrsini are socks of some banned user Purger. Please tell me if you see him turn up again with new accounts/IPs. – Steel 21:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop

I would appreciate if you stop vandalizing my talk page. If you are so upset with Wikipedia, you might consider going outside and taking a breath. Just get something better to do and leave me alone. - Alterego269 20:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't bother responding on your talk page because you delete all comments and warnings that people post there. You obviously don't understand what vandalism is, and you obviously don't understand Wikipedia policies. As for your "If you are so upset..." comment, I believe that is a comment that someone once wrote on your talk page, and it has absolutely nothing to do with what I have done. Spylab 21:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that Alterego269 has been banned indefinitely from Wikipedia .Spylab 10:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack by Scottandrewhutchins

Thank you for single-handedly destroying Characters of Monster in My Pocket by changing it into a list. I don't appreciate you meddling where you clearly had no interest. --Scottandrewhutchins 15:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I clicked on that link, and that page doesn't even exist any more. The deletion of that page has nothing to do with me. I will respond to your unwarranted personal attack on your talk page. Spylab 15:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you filed a sockpuppetry case against 68.88.73.146?

If not I will later today.Hoponpop69 17:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because there is a citation request for the whole article

Does not mean you should delete individual requests. It's counter productive.Hoponpop69 01:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You're comment that "articles should not be cluttered up with citations"...

Is wrong and disproven by Wikipedia:Citing sources. Please do not remove these tags unless you are also removing the content in question Hoponpop69 02:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The Montreal Nazi again?

Hi, I may well be doing an authentic user a disservice but the contributions of recently appeared user:AryeitskiySaldat do bear a strong resemblance to those of the aformentioned. Might be an idea to check and prove me wrong. regards Marcus22 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to follow up on this: there are several other users editing British National Party, pushing the same exact POV edit. Some of them may be SPAs, while others may be meatpuppets... In any case, the activity seems to have slowed in recent days, but I thought that you might want to know about them, as they have been making identical edits to certain edits by User:AryeitskiySaldat (who may be a sock puppet of User:Laderov). Compare:

AryeitskiySaldat (talk · contribs) ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8])
24.203.217.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]) Same IP range as several of those listed in here
TsarKing (talk · contribs) ([15], [16], [17]) No other edits -- SPA?
81.77.115.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ([18]) No other edits -- SPA?
4.246.212.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ([19]) No other edits -- SPA?
62.252.193.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ([20])
84.66.110.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ([21], [22], [23], [24])

They're located in different cities, so I hesitate to label them as sockpuppets categorically. Nevertheless, these edits appear to be rather suspect. Cheers! --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 14:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Do these look familiar?

The problem the editor(s) is/are causing leads me to suspect that the puppet master may also be causing trouble over in facist articles such as British National Party.

I am trying to track down the master of these puppets: Special:Contributions/EdChampion, Special:Contributions/85.189.180.235, Special:Contributions/85.189.181.99, Special:Contributions/79.72.130.63, Special:Contributions/79.74.238.223.

Also, Special:Contributions/84.66.110.223 edits in a style that is quite simmilar to the above accounts.

Could any of these be one of your guys? Did you ban anyone around August 5th, when these accounts suddenly started to attack the Edmund the Martyr article? -- SECisek 22:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to be posted on SECisek's talk page.Spylab 10:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. -- SECisek 16:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange (third nomination). Thank you. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ustaše

In case you wonder why I deleted members after Ustaše I did it because Ustaše (plural) is the term for two or more members of the Ustaša. Ustaša (singular) is the term for a single member of the organisation and was also the name of the organisation itself. For English-language Wikipedia it would actually make better sense for the article title to be given in the anglicised singular Ustasha with first mention in the lead followed by (Croatian: Ustaše [plural Ustaše]) but I'm not going to set that hare running while people seem content with the present title. Kirker 00:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

White Nigger / Nègre blanc

Is it? It is the pre-existing, famous-to-Canadians-of-a-certain-age usage of the term white nigger. It is hardly irrelevant. It used to be the only meaning of white nigger that I can recall, well before anybody had ever conceived of hiphop. Where do you suggest that it go in that case? The other contemporaneous use of "nigger" as metaphor is in John Lennon's "Woman is the Nigger of the World". And John Lennon staged his famous bed-in in Quebec; is that purely coincidental? Or did he pick up that usage when he was in politicized Montreal?

The article does mention "white negro" which is another antecedent. I simply provided a different type of antecedent. Eh? Varlaam 01:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC) (in Toronto)

response on Varlaam's talk page.Spylab 10:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protecting pages

Hi,

Why not just protect those few pages the user:Purger is opsessed with from anonymus edits? --Ante Perkovic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ante Perkovic (talk • contribs) 11:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would if I could, but if I submit a request to semi-protect those pages, an administrator will probably respond with something like "not enough recent vandalism to warrant protection." The other option would be to make IP check/sock puppet reports every single time that banned individual uses a new IP, but I would rather spend my time on other things.Spylab 11:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Beyond Hatred

Hi, I don't want to get into an edit war here. Can you explain why having sections is a problem? I don't know if you work on many film articles or not, but this is generally how it's done per the film style guidelines. I hope to continue developing this article and having sections helps the development of the article beyond a stub. --Beloved Freak 16:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit note, Beyond Hatred is a short article, and the individual sections were tiny. The section headings cluttered up the page and made it more difficult to read than it needs to be. The articles used as examples on the the film style guidelines page are much longer, so that's why separate sections are warranted in those cases.Spylab 16:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

You've been named by user 4.249.72.18 at an administrators noticeboard. I notice you claim in the relevant edits that they're a sockpuppet of a banned user, if you have any evidence to this effect I suggest presenting that there so we can take action on it. Orderinchaos 18:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The edit histories and the similar IPs speak for themselves in showing that that the anonymous IP is a sock puppet of permanently-banned Velebit aka Guivon aka NovaNova aka Modelsides, etc. See my IP check request here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#Obvious IP socks of banned individual. He has made a few posts at the administrators noticeboard trying to get me blocked, and every single one of them failed because he is the one who violates Wikipedia rules, not me. Spylab 12:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool, mind you, he's not very good at it - a one-post IP calling for someone to be blocked generally isn't going to get far. Thanks for providing the info. (And wow - lots of socks! the most I'm aware of of a single user is in high double digits...) Orderinchaos 12:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

E mail

Hi,

How can I send you an email?

--Ante Perkovic 12:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I have decided that I prefer to keep all Wikipedia-related correspondence public; to keep things open, and to prevent the possibility of getting harassing emails from people like you-know-who.Spylab 13:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. Do you use IRC? It is trolling-free :).--Ante Perkovic 13:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never used IRC.Spylab 16:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

NDH

Because you have last worked on article NDH can you please tell me why this part of article has been deleted:"The concession of an autonomous Croat province, the Banovina of Croatia, had been too recent (1939) to offset the friction that had marked the last decade under the absolutist regime of the Yugoslav king which has terrorized Croats [25] [26]" In my thinking this is important because it is showing why part of Croats has hated Serbs and why everything after that has happen .--Rjecina 15:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked my recent edits in that article, and it doesn't look like I removed that text, so I'm not sure why it was deleted. However, the wording could be improved to make it flow better, and to make it more understandable to the layperson. Spylab 18:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It has been little revert war before your changes. Paulicero and blocked vandal Guivon has deleted words. In original before revert war words have been (version 29 July) "The concession of an autonomous Croat province, the Banovina of Croatia, had been too recent (1939) to offset the friction that had marked the last two decades under the militarist regime of the Yugoslav king." To this I have added words "which has terrorized Croats" using like reference statement of Einstein (last time this version has been on 20 August). Then has fallen words that Einstein is Ustaša and in the end everything about dictatorial king has been deleted in today version.--Rjecina 18:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

More pop punk fun

Iput a warning on User talk:69.205.246.61‎ about his updates to punk bands. If he does it again he should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism feel free to issue warnings and report vandalism for this stuff too.--Dr who1975 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

One citation request per sentence?

I'm wondering where you are getting this rule from? Can you link me to a wikipedia policy that states this? Hoponpop69 03:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a specific Wikipedia rule, but a lead sentence with six citation requests looks ridiculous and is totally unnecessary. One citation request is enough to make the point. You are the only Wikipedia editor I've noticed cluttering up articles with an overabundance of citation requests. Spylab 03:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well sorry but if you can't back it up with a policy, I'm not going to follow what appears to be a rule made up by you. If you delete my citation requests again i'm going to report you.

Hoponpop69 01:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Burial

With regards to The Burial not being a major player in Oi! Mark Brennan of Captain Oi! Records describes The Burial in the lining notes of Oi! The Demos as “the prototype Skacore band” and on his website as “vastly underrated” . In his piece The Truth about Oi! Garry Bushell says “Scarborough’s Burial cited and Oi! And 2-Tone as forebears and mixed the sounds of ska and rowdy bootboy punk in there set” Since it can be said the main legacy of Oi! in musical terms is with regards to it’s fusion of Streetpunk and Ska The Burial are without doubt major players if not the number one (Garry Bushells band The Gonads have a song called Joys Of Oi! in which the line "the Burial at number one is sung"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plasmajam (talk • contribs) 18:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

response on Plasmajam's talk page.Spylab 19:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

 The Burial
Thanks for your advice and help i'll put up some more references a.s.a.p  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plasmajam (talk • contribs) 09:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Totally Confused re: Editing Process (See Ska Page)

I'm sorry, there is something I am not getting. I edited the ska page, it was a constant fight with Upsetterfc. You had indicated that I needed to put citations so I did. A TON of them. Still an editing war with Upsetterfc. He kept deleting everything I contributed so I gave up. I decided not to make any more contributions to pages where Upsetterfc is involved. Fine problem solved situation resolved. So then I edited the Talk page since the situation had been resolved and DerHexer accused me of vandalism.I edited it with an explanation and now you reverse it.

This is TOTALLY confusing. You delete what I want to add and you keep adding what I want to delete. I just don't get it. On the one hand, pages on here ask for contributions. When contributions are made it's such a hassle it doesn't seem to be worth the bother. I almost get the impression that certain people own certain pages here and no one else is allowed to make any changes. Please clarify. Clearly there is something I am not getting.

I will paste this for DerHexer as well.

69.158.112.194 13:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not supposed to delete stuff in talk pages just because it's old. You are especially not supposed to delete other people's comments on talk pages, unless it is total nonsense or if it violates Wikipedia guidelines. As for the ska article itself, I made suggestions to you, which you followed, but I didn't want to get involved in the edit war betweeen Upsetterfc and yourself.Spylab 14:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Am I not allowed to delete my comments when they are old and the matter is resolved? Don't worry I just won't be making any contributions anywhere that Upsetterfc frequents. I thought you were senior to him and that is why you got involved.

69.158.112.194 15:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Old conversations on talk pages help new users see what went on before with an article, and lets them see why certain edits may have been made. I'm just another editor like Upsetterfc and yourself. The only way that I could be considered "senior" is that I have contributed to Wikipedia longer than both of you, but that doesn't give me any special administrative powers.Spylab 17:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. From the way certain editors behave you would never know that all editors are equal. They act like they own certain pages. I will steer clear of those pages.

Once again, thanks.

69.158.108.65 03:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Laderov (talk · contribs), Sviatoslav86 (talk · contribs) and Anstatt (talk · contribs)

Hi! I noticed that you have been investigating Laderov before and seem to suspect Sviatoslav86 of being a sock of his. You should know that Anstatt has appeared on Talk:British National Party and is pretty obviously a sock of Sviatoslav86 per my evidence at the bottom of that talk page. Given Laderov's history of blocking consensus the pattern of disruption is the same. How certain are you that Sviatoslav86 may be a sock of Laderov? If he is it would certainly explain a lot and solve the dispute on the talk page which is blocking all progress on the article. Cheers, EconomicsGuy 11:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to be posted on EconomicsGuy's talk page.Spylab 14:08, 10 October 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, 19:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC).

That wasn't completed. It was dismissed without even doing a check. I have left questions on that person's talk page and will re-submit my legitimate request if nothing is done.Spylab 19:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Shane Ruttle Martinez

Hi friend, I like your history of contributions to Wiki (much along my areas of interest as well). I reverted your edit to the Shane Ruttle Martinez article, not for any bad reasons, simply because I prefer the original format. If you're intent on the changes though, perhaps we could strike a balance to enhance the appearance. Just let me know - best regards. Frank Pais 04:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Your contributions to the SRM article are beneficial in general, but please show some grounds for compromise in terms of formatting, etc. The pre-existing format was not problematic. We all have our preferred formats, but striking a balance is far better than constant revert nonsense. Like I said, your contributions are good, but please show respect for mine as well. Much thanks. Frank Pais (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Bernie Goetz

Please stop deleting the "in popular culture" section for Bernie Goetz. Read policy:

WP:TRIV guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page.If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.)

Moreover, there is no consensus that "references in popular culture" are trivia.

If you think clutters the page, then create a sub-page Bernie Goetz References in popular culture.

thank you, Repliedthemockturtle 00:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There is not a single reference in that trivia section. Content without references can be removed at any time.Spylab 17:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Neo-Nazism. 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 that gains a consensus among editors. --Strothra 17:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A question

Kindly please explain what is the reason for posting this message ([27]) on my talk page?--Smerdyakoff (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

See here.Spylab (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

- I hope that this response from the checkuser will sober you. Also, I advise you to read the Wikipedia rules about civilty - which requires public apology followed baseless and frivolous accusations and suspicions.--Smerdyakoff (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I would apologize if I violated Wikipedia policy or did something wrong in some way. I have followed Wikipedia guidelines and did what one is supposed to do when one suspects sock puppetry. Just because an administrator decided not to do an IP check does not necessarily mean I am incorrect about my suspicians..Spylab (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppet of banned user

Smerdyakoff (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Velebit (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
NovaNova (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I strongly suspect that Smerdyakoff is the latest sock puppet account of Velebit, NovaNova and countless other incarnations of a permanently-banned individual. This comment here, particularly tipped me off, considering NovaNova was the only one obsessed with that topic, and they both use the same unique style of language. Also, Smerdyakoff's few edits also focus on the same topics that NovaNova was focused on. More evidence can be found by looking at the various edit histories. Please take the appropriate action if the IP check proves that it is likely that it is the same banned individual. Spylab (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised seeing this type of accusation on my talk pages. Asked for explanation and, after getting it on the Spylab talk page - I was driven here. As to the 'permanently-banned' - I went here ([28]) and did not found any of the names listed above. I believe that Wikipedia rule of civilty requires avoiding accusations unsuported this way.--Smerdyakoff (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Declined. I can't find enough evidence from what is here and via similar-page editing scans. Also, NovaNova's edits are stale; the data is not stored anymore. Voice-of-All 23:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Streets (punk album). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Yozzer66 (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, since you violated 3RR first and I only reverted your final unjustified revert.Spylab (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Spylab, judging by some of the other messages posted to you, you seem to take pleasure in ignoring Wikipedia conventions and winding people up. Come on, there is plenty of other ways of occupying your time if you don't like your fellow Wikipedians and value their contributions. Do you actually like early Punk at all? If you do, then work WITH others NOT against them. Look forward to a more constructive interaction in the future! Yozzer66 (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Your assesment of my contibutions to Wikipedia is grossly inaccurate. I suggest you familiarize yourself more with Wikipedia standards for neutrality, grammar, punctuation, formatting and other factors instead of instantly reverting necessary corrections to Wikipedia articles.Spylab (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation filed

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Neo-Nazism, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Daniel 02:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Neo-Nazism.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 21:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Neo-Nazism. 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 that gains a consensus among editors. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 23:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Leeway

note left on Talk:Punk Rock. If you read deeper in S.O.I.A. you'll find their career didn't take off till 89 or so. Their fame is based on what they did in the 90s. Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Rhythm and Blues

Tell you what, SpyLab, I am prepared to continue working on this article, but not if all of it is going to be tagged as disputed. Or, maybe I should delete everything that isn't referenced. What do you say? Steve Pastor (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, tags always go at the top, unless the tags say "section."Spylab (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Reggae

See my general comments on this article at Talk:Reggae. If you want to do some tidy up in there, I'm with you. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The general rule of thumb on Wikipedia is if a band isn't noteworthy enough to have its own article, it's not notable enough to be mentioned in an article

After noticing this comment you made, I was wondering if I could get your opinion on this argument.[29]

Thanks!Hoponpop69 (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

-Will respond on Hoponpop69's talk page. Spylab (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to your response on my talk page.Hoponpop69 (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ultraviolence

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Ultraviolence, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rabble (disambiguation)

Hi Spy,

I am confused by your edit of Rabble (disambiguation). I can see two changes you have made. The first was to bring the primary topic down into the general list. The second was to add periods at the end of the descriptions. Both of these changes are against guidelines as outlined on WP:MOSDAB as follows:

Entries should nearly always be sentence fragments. Even when the entry forms a complete sentence, do not include commas or periods at the end of the line.

When a page has "(disambiguation)" in the title, users are unlikely to stumble on it by accident. They will arrive there by clicking on a link from the primary topic article, by searching, or by directly typing its URL.

The link on the main article should be similar to:

For other uses, see School (disambiguation).

The {{otheruses}} template series can be used.

Since it is unlikely that this well-known meaning is what they are looking for, it should not be mixed in with the other links. It is recommended to place the link back to the primary topic at the top, like this:

A school is an institution for learning.

School may also refer to:

School (discipline), a group of people with common characteristics in what they do, e.g. a school of painting, or a school of thought
"School" (song), by the grunge music group Nirvana
School (band), a band from Konami's Pop'n Music series
A swarm of fish

If you feel that I have misinterpreted your edit of Rabble (disambiguation), please let me know.

Neelix (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have noted the above and made the require corrections. Spylab (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sham 69 - Jimmy Pursey - Day 21

You recently wiped a page on Jimmy Pursey saying it was almost identical to the Sham 69 page. The basis format of Sham 69 was being used as a template because Jimmy was the founder member of this band. The link to the Jimmy Pursey page also came from the Sham 69 page. The new page for Jimmy Pursey was gradually being updated to reflect his transition from Sham 69 to his new band DAY 21. The reason that so much of Jimmy's page looked the same as Sham 69 was that his history is steeped in Sham 69. Anyone searching Wiki for Jimmy Pursey would prefer to see current information rather than get directed to his old band page of Sham 69 - and Jimmy would prefer this too. Can I please ask that future material put up on Jimmy Pursey's entry page is left alone - no matter if it initially does have a lot of the same information in it as the Sham 69 page. Max London —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxLondon (talk • contribs) 17:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There is not enough content at this point to warrant having a separate Jimmy Pursey page on Wikipedia. I redirected it to Sham 69 because it was almost an exact duplicate of the Sham 69 article. It had almost no information that was specifically about Pursey or his new band. Spylab (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Velebit

We can delete all edits of banned user:Velebit aka .... made after October 2006. In deleting his comments maybe I have deleted something what you do not want to be deleted. If this is true I am sorry. --Rjecina (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you noticed edits of bandit clown (User:Procrustes the clown) . I have reverted his edits in article Croatian War of Independence but I will not revert his edits how Milosević, Marjanović, Vasiljković (kapetan Dragan), Arkan and others are nice guys and how Đinđić is piece of shit. For now I am tired of edit warring with serbian vandals or puppets of banned users which are not editing articles about Croatia.--Rjecina (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

This is your only warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Hal Turner, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Will ^(talk) 23:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the unjustified blanking of an article, which violates Wikipedia rules. There is a deletion discussion for that article, and the overwhelming majority says to keep the article. I have violated no Wikipedia rules, so your warning can be disregarded as frivolous. Spylab (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)