User talk:Spike Wilbury
 Archives |
|---|
Happy 70th birthday, Spike!
Many happy returns in the next life. -- Y not? 14:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- You shouldn't have! --Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- lol -- Y not? 18:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- About time someone fixed that caption. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's the least I could do for the restoration of world peace. -- Y not? 19:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- About time someone fixed that caption. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- lol -- Y not? 18:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Great, now they're engaged. Thanks, nameless contibutor! -- Y not? 22:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Harrison FAC
Thanks for your kind and helpful comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Harrison/archive2. I've made a series of edits that I hope have addressed most of your concerns. In particular, I've now re-worked the Guitar work sub-section so as to be a more satisfing read for musicians. I hope you can find the time to revisit the FAC. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Is there anything in particular holding-up your support that I could address? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, you have addressed my comments thus far. I just wanted to give it another good read-through before I make any further comments/declarations on the FAC page. Thanks! --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
3RR
What's the point of the rule if it's not enforced? This is the second or third time Kwamikagami has hit 4RR or 5RR at this article without being blocked for it, and the third or fourth time s/he has hit 4RR or 5RR at the article. There is theoretically a reason behind our edit-warring policy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- I was actually hoping that everyone involved would gain consensus on the talk page instead of edit warring, but I see it has resumed even after I declined the case and asked for discussion. I'll be revisiting the situation now. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm really not sure how to deal with this situation. I tried to continue discussion on the talk page, but talking into the aether is pointless and that's what I'm doing if I post my opinions and get no reply from other users. After a week of no one posting any disagreement with my views, I reverted to the consensus state of the article, which Kwami had been trying to change, and Kwami ups and reverts again - again without even pretending to join the discussion. I'm really tired of Kwami trying to singlehandedly impose hir own personal version of the article on everyone else without consensus, but it seems like we're at a stalemate if s/he is going to continue reverting without discussion until the end of time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- I see that you put some queries out on the talk page that have been unanswered since around 4/14. I'll take a look at the page today when I have some more dedicated time. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Additionally, I don't know whose sockpuppet 61 is, but from the behavior/edit summaries, I strongly suspect it's not a new user. Maybe you have a better idea than I do who it could be? I'm not in this topic area much. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think the only reasonable course of action at this point is page protection, which essentially forces discussion without the disputed edits to the page. Once anon editors enter the fray, it becomes even more difficult to separate edit warriors from well-meaning editors (not that the two are mutually exclusive). --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- When Adjwilley and I have together come up with the best wording for the content, can we submit an edit request? I'm obviously ignoring Nyttend's removal of it here since s/he has declined to take part in the discussion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think the only reasonable course of action at this point is page protection, which essentially forces discussion without the disputed edits to the page. Once anon editors enter the fray, it becomes even more difficult to separate edit warriors from well-meaning editors (not that the two are mutually exclusive). --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- I see that you put some queries out on the talk page that have been unanswered since around 4/14. I'll take a look at the page today when I have some more dedicated time. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm really not sure how to deal with this situation. I tried to continue discussion on the talk page, but talking into the aether is pointless and that's what I'm doing if I post my opinions and get no reply from other users. After a week of no one posting any disagreement with my views, I reverted to the consensus state of the article, which Kwami had been trying to change, and Kwami ups and reverts again - again without even pretending to join the discussion. I'm really tired of Kwami trying to singlehandedly impose hir own personal version of the article on everyone else without consensus, but it seems like we're at a stalemate if s/he is going to continue reverting without discussion until the end of time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| Without your highly valued insights and edits at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Harrison/archive2, the article would not be FA today! Thanks so much for all the encouragement! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC) |
Eric Clapton
Helo . I`m newbie there but I can say that Eric Clapton never played hard rock. I listen Clapton since I was 8 years old (now I`m 20) . I`m a big fan of Mr . Eric and that`s very serious mistake that eric clapton is rock musician :) I think that wikipedia is a trusy source for people and we would work to reduce mistakes . Eric Clapton is a great BLUES MAn and there is not mentiond blues :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xorxeli (talk • contribs) 21:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Dozens of people come to music articles here every day and change genres to whatever their personal opinion is. The only thing that matters is what's reflected in the preponderance of reliable sources. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Wolfgang Van Halen
I noticed there are far better images on commons of Wolfgang Van Halen. If you pick one you like then I can crop it for the infobox. I have had headaches from music articles so I avoid the drama now. I added the link to commons images in the external links, right side.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information! I will take a look at swapping it out. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- You are very welcome. I still have to upload a bunch from festival I was at last summer. I uploaded one of Blue Oyster Cult but I still have Trooper and some others. Can you manage any cropping that is needed? I use GIMP which is free and as good or better than expensive software.Canoe1967 (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Done. I picked what I thought was best and cropped it for the infobox.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
FYI
It looks like Roscelese is resurrecting her edit war at Secular Islam Summit. This is how she usually starts: the article is stable, which proves it needs to be reverted because no-one has corrected it to her version.
BTW, both of us were approached to see if we were willing to leave the article in others' hands. I was, because only Roscelese is a continuing problem. She wasn't, apparently unless she had some guarantee that her POV would be implemented. — kwami (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'll be taking a look later. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Spike, I left a comment directed toward you on the #Protected section of the talk page. I'm not asking you to make the edit now, but I would appreciate it if you would put the page on your watchlist and follow through until consensus is reached (rather than protecting the page and walking away forever, leaving us stranded as some admins do sometimes). ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, please revert to the pre-edit-war version. R is rewarded for her edit warring again and again by having the page protected in her non-consensus version. — kwami (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, because when one person edit-wars against everyone else, we restore pages to pre-edit war versions. As I said to Roscelese, she should be surprised and gratified that she got off without an additional block, which is what is generally done when one person is warring against everyone else. Nyttend (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, when I saw the initial report, I was rather suspicious of the claims made, and my opinions changed substantially before I performed the revert; my decisions and current opinions have all been based on what I saw in the page history, not on statements (true or false) made at ANI. Nyttend (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- The "stable version" is the one that includes Haddad's comment, which has been in the article since July. Why don't you point out a version from the edit history that you consider "stable"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, when I saw the initial report, I was rather suspicious of the claims made, and my opinions changed substantially before I performed the revert; my decisions and current opinions have all been based on what I saw in the page history, not on statements (true or false) made at ANI. Nyttend (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
AGF?
Oh, so I am "trolling"? How do you figure? By removing personal attacks? [1] WP:REFACTOR is quite clear that "off-topic, uncivil", and "distracting" material can be removed. And I haven't even removed this provocative material, I just hatted it. Does she really think that if she makes a big enough disruption that no one will bother to check her source? 18:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)61.4.72.107 (talk)