User talk:Spylab

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

User:Spylab/User talk:Spylab/archive1 User:Spylab/User talk:Spylab/archive2 User:Spylab/User talk:Spylab/archive3 User:Spylab/User talk:Spylab/archive4 User:Spylab/User talk:Spylab/archive5

Contents 1 Rollback 2 ARA (anti-abortion) 3 Need reference 4 Dictionaries as references 5 anti-abortion/pro-life part 2 6 Motown Records 7 AfD nomination of Reggae rock 8 User talk:71.252.101.51 9 NDH 10 Hippie peer review 11 Casuals 12 White pride

[edit] Rollback

You have been granted with the rollback permission on the basis of your recent effort on dealing with vandalism. The rollback is a revert tool which can lessens the strains that normal javascripts such as twinkle put on the Wikipedia servers. You will find that you will revert faster through the rollback than through the normal reversion tools such as javascripts and the undo feature, because the rollback feature does not require fetching the data from the page history and then sending article data back to the Wikipedia server as the javascript requires, therefore you could save time especially when reverting very large articles such as the George W. Bush page. To use it, simply click the link which should look like [rollback] (which should appear unbolded if you have twinkle installed) on the lastest diff page. The rollback link will also appear on the history page beside the edit summary of the lastest edit. For more information, you may refer to this page, alternatively, you may also find this tutorial on rollback helpful.Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh by the way, I just noticed you had past 3RR violations, while I will not take away your rollback since you have made at least some vandalism reverts, please only use the rollback on obvious vandal edits. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ARA (anti-abortion)

thanks. that seems to be a nice way to solve a potential problem. Sennen goroshi (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need reference

On your recent changes to the Facism article, in the first sentence under "Anti-Communism", you used the phrase "most historians". That, you may be aware, is a "weasel" term. Do you have any references that would support that, as well as any other notable historians that might refute that? Thanks. No confrontation intended. --Richiar (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not use that phrase or any other phrases in that section. I deleted a chunk of off-topic content that was about communism, and had nothing to do with fascism.Spylab (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I see that you removed the off-topic content. I don't know enough about facism to take a position on the content, I'm just interested in the topic. But I did notice the change in the first two sentences between the edit of 01:15 on 1 March, and the edit of 23:18 1 March. The phrase "historians E G Carr and Eric Hobsbawn" was removed, and the phrase "some historians" was inserted. I think the latter phrase was in the paragraph that you added. I'm only calling attention to it. I thought it might be good to add references if there are any. If I am mistaken, my apologies. As I said, I have no intention of being critical or confrontive. Regards. --Richiar (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dictionaries as references

re "(→Definitions and scope of the word: delted dictionary definition as per Wikipedia guidelines)" - "(→Definitions and scope of the word: added Webster's New Internatinal Dictinary, 2nd Edition, Unabridged (1954), second meaning)", looked all about for specific guidelines - could not find, why the removal, or where is the guideline specific to stated reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.233.63 (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship says "Items that are signed are preferable to unsigned articles." Dictionaries are not signed or attributed to individual writers who can be held accountable. Dictionaries often get things wrong, especially when it comes to political topics. Spylab (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the link, still would have thought that Webster would be considered reliable; that definition was agreed on by the editors less than 10 years from the end of hostilities and would be better suited to understand it's meaning than any definition you might find now (Liberal Fascism comes to mind) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.233.63 (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] anti-abortion/pro-life part 2

there seems to be the same issue on this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God involving the same person. Could you take a look at it, and give an opinion, before it decends into a silly edit war? thanks Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Motown Records

After re-reading the article, I now understand your point, and I apologize for snapping at you. I have merged Motown Sound into Motown Records. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Reggae rock

An editor has nominated Reggae rock, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reggae rock and 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:71.252.101.51

Hi Spylab, just a note, it's generally not a good idea to revert-war on other people's talk pages over the removal of postings. If that IP wants to remove your section, it's actually their right to do so, however stupid their reasons may be. If they remove it, they've read it. It's not worth sweating over, and certainly not worth breaking 3RR over (which is actually in force on such matters). Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NDH

I have noticed your request on NDH talk page about section Racial legislation. For now this section is only speaking about NDH racial laws and early small connection with Yugoslav racial law from 1939. Sources for statements in this section of article are here: This are NDH racial laws (on Croatian) and this is about kingdom of Yugoslavia antisemitism . Now you can rewrite this section of article :) --Rjecina (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

My response to be posted at User talk:Rjecina.Spylab (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been in Croatia and Bosnia recently so not at Wikipedia much recently. I just stumbled on your exchange with Rjecina by chance as I've not been watching either talk page. I'm heading back to Croatia at the weekend so will not be checking in here much until mid-May.

Rjecina is right that I did agree to do some copy-editing of his contributions, though I told him I would prefer to do this before they show up on Wikipedia, as I might not always want to have my name associated with them(!). Also, there has been a frenzy of activity on the NDH page since Rjecina and I started discussing how to improve the article. If I understood a message in Croatian from Rjecina, he thought it would be best for us to hold off until the present bout of editing is finished. That's certainly my own view. I haven't tracked recent changes closely but it does look as though DIREKTOR and TheWanderer have made the article much stronger,TheWanderer in particular. I just wonder now if it is a bit longer than the subject warrants? Anyway, when it's the way they want it I will be happy to do any editing necessary and to help Rjecina get his points across. Kirker (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hippie peer review

Hi, it's good to see you again. Have you been following the hippie peer review at the top of the talk page? I appreciate your recent changes to the article, but since we are dealing with a stable version, your major changes without discussion makes the peer review much more difficult. I agree that the lead needs expansion and that the origins section needs to be incorporated into the article, but I think we need to pay closer attention to accuracy and quality prose. I see that you removed mentioning the youth movement in the lead and even added inline notes to the text. Could you take a moment to explain why you think this is an improvement over the previous version? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I just want to let you know that if I don't hear from you, I'm going to restore the previous version and work from there. I think you are definitely on to something, but we need to approach it slowly and with some discussion on the matter. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what you thing was wrong with my improvements to the hippie article. I didn't delete any relevant content; I mostly just moved content to the correct sections. I also corrected the formatting of the reference and links sections at the bottom as per Wikipedia layout guidelines. Some of that content I merely moved back to its original location in the lead, which was moved to a different section for some reason since the last time I checked the article.Spylab (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the links or any of the minor edits you made. I'm talking about your changes to the lead and your merge of major content - content that has been heavily discussed on the talk page. You removed one of the most relevant aspects from the lead, which described it as youth movement. I don't understand why this was removed as it is highly significant. I also don't understand your changes to the lead or how they improved it; The prose is now choppy, confusing, and doesn't flow. But more importantly, I don't understand how your merge of the origins section improved the article. I can agree with what you are trying to achieve, but the implementation doesn't make any sense. You added inline notes to the article that read completely out of context, and you've added text to sections that doesn't belong. If you can explain your improvements, or at least convince me of them, I am willing to listen, but right now I'm having trouble seeing them. Like I said before, we've got a peer review going on that needs to be addressed before major changes like this are enacted without discussion. I would love your help with the peer review (lots of open tasks there needing immediate attention) but I would ask that you self-revert your major changes at this time until we can agree on moving forward. Viriditas (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• I moved the term youth movement from the first sentence of the History section into the lead sentence. The Origins section was the exact same thing as the History section, and there was no reason for it to be separate. It even repeated some of the exact same topics. The Origins section wasn't even really about the origins of the hippie subculture; that topic was covered in the first section of the History section. It is especially clear since most of the content that was in the previous Origins section really belonged in the middle of the History section, based on the years that the events happened.Spylab (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll leave it alone for another day and then try to improve it. Please try to read the article with fresh eyes; for example, read the article as if you have never seen it before and pretend you know nothing about the topic. By doing that, you'll see the problems with the prose in the lead and the inline refs you've added into the body. A new reader will say, what is a subgroup of a counterculture and who the heck is Hirsch? The previous version of the lead was clear, direct, and to the point. I see that someone has also changed the prose in the "Revolution" section into a list, which is the exact opposite of how it should read; lists should be turned into prose. Viriditas (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• I just reverted a spammer attempting to add a commercial external link [1] when I noticed that the entire further reading section and resources had been removed. This section exists in line with acceptable policies and specifically prevents the addition of spam links and allows editors to review important documents for further reading and to add them to the article as references for new content. Neither an external links or a see also section is needed in any way, and I suggest that you help to design a series template for hippie-related articles that will appear as a footer for see also links instead. That is the ideal solution. If you have a particular series footer that you like, let's use it. I've also added back the original lead and I would encourage you to discuss your proposed changes on the talk page. In case you don't know, see also sections are usually "holding" areas for links that need to be incorporated into an article. External links sections, whenever possible, are removed and replaced with properly formatted references or further reading which serve the same purpose but prevent the addition of non-notable spam links. You really won't find anyone who says that the removal of the further reading and resources section and its replacement with an amateur-ish see also and ext. links section is an "improvement". We do not want to encourage "see also" or "ext. links" sections. If you are interested in helping improve the article, I would like to ask you to get involved with the peer review. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• After noticing that some of the material no longer had the correct references after your merge, and how much of the content made no sense in its new context, I've completely reversed the merge - however - I have merged it into the history section as a historical overview. If you are unable to help improve the article per the current peer review, and feel that you must once again remove sections and merge material, please use the talk page to develop a consensus on the matter, first. Viriditas (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Casuals

Please don't add original resaerch to this article. Wikipedia is based on verfiable sources only. [2] is self published and is not verfiable and therefore cannot be used. --neonwhite user page talk 13:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

On the Casuals talk page I have just posted 11 quotes and sources referring to casuals as a subculture.Spylab (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] White pride

Hiya, glad to see you working on the White pride article. I hope to return to this at the weekend (I'm trying not to edit during the week), but thought I'd encourage and thank you in the meantime. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good work. I notice there's a lack of history regarding the term. I'm very skeptical that there's any difference between this and white supremacism. The claim that there is "a cultural double standard in which only certain ethnicity groups are permitted to openly have pride in their heritage" is absurd, as every "white" ethnic group openly celebrates their heritage throughout the country. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I see you're continuing to revert my work on this article, without much in the way of discussion. That doesn't seem a particularly productive way to proceed. For instance, regarding this revert (the second time you've deleted that sentence), as I explain on the talk page, the point of paragraphing is to use topic sentences, which summarize what follows. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, with your multiple deletions of the phrase "for instance" (this being the most recent example), I'm really rather puzzled as to what you're doing; I've tried to explain what I've been doing on the talk page. It would be grand if you could add some discussion there before reverting. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)