User talk:Spike Wilbury/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8


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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 22:21, 25 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)


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 (talkcontribs) 22:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Spike, not sure if you noticed, but there is an active edit request on the talk page (two requests actually). If you have the time, would you mind making the edits please? ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I did notice. It looks like there are open questions about the wording and the use of the term "nonpartisan". I would hesitate to make the edit until those concerns are resolved. By the way, please do not change the wording to that horrid passive voice construction. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The nitpickyness on the talkpage is going to drive me crazy. The "nonpartisan" wording has been up for a week, and it's directly supported by the source. I wish we could just get things moving so people could relax a little. There has been no opposition to the second request ("expert on Islamic law"). Could you at least do that one? ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
If we could manage to relax a little, we could solve many more disputes than just this one. Hopefully after your latest response, that concern can be put to rest. Incidentally, it's spelled "Hadad" in the source; is there some reason for the "Haddad" spelling? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I believe Haddad is the correct spelling and the news article just has a typo. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


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) (talk)


I object to Roscelese making uncivil, snotty, and disruptive comments on Secular Islam Summit. WP:REFACTOR is quite clear that off-topic, uncivil, and distracting material can be refactored. "Try reading harder next time." is civil? "Don't waste everyone's time" is civil? "behave like a reasonable editor" is civil? No, this is the poster-child for "snide, aggressive, personal remarks", belittling, taunting, baiting, lying, and quoting out of context. If she had said those thing to YOU, I bet the very LEAST you would do is hat the comments. (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the best thing to do when someone makes uncivil comments toward you is to ignore them. Half the time they didn't mean it to be uncivil, and the other half it probably wasn't as uncivil as you interpret it to be. Uncivil comments just make them look bad. Hatting drama and edit warring make you both look bad. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
This is hugely disruptive to the discussion, I am disappointed that no one is willing to stand up to her. You were brave enough to threaten me and call me a troll [2] for a comment--a true comment--I left on her talk page where policy makes quite clear is where such comments belong. And now she is spewing lies on the article talk page, where the discussion should be about the subject and not the editors, and you do nothing. (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I assume your comment was addressed to Spike, since the diff is to his edit, and I don't recall threatening you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


The user Roscelese, has been doing some pretty disturbing stuff lately. I bring it to your attention since I see you have had to deal with the user before. I am not sure how to proceed. He/she has started sockpuppet investigations for many users just b/c he/she disagrees with the content. All the articles have to do with Islam. Whether the articles should be reviewed or not- a wiki user cannot under his or her own accord manage an entire subject matter on Wikipedia. Roscelese has now brought 5 accounts under investigation all because they are using one book or strike the same tone and not too mention I am being blamed for every single user as my sockpuppet which is ridiculous. But the matter is, Roscelese is wiping the Wikipedia from any opposing views other than his/hers. This user should be punished somehow. Not sure what, but just because he/she doesn't agree w/ the content does not mean he/she should ban a user from wikipedia. Debate the article is a fair manner, don't ban the user. So please advise, not sure what to do. GroundRisk (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

May I have the links to all these sockpuppet investigations, so I don't have to go hunting for them? Filing these reports is not grounds for being "punished" unless a user has a history of purely disruptive and baseless filings. Roscelese's actions are neither of those things. She's clearly passionate about the areas in which she edits, as are you. It's a good formula for conflict. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
This is the archive of the sockpuppets. I was accused for 5. And it isn't even the accusations that make me mad b/c whatever I can deal that. However, I feel bad for the other users. . Here is the latest investigation, so that makes 6 I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GroundRisk (talkcontribs) 12:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
But you are socking. Most or all of those socks are pretty obvious, including the latest one. You'll be lucky if you get away without a longer-term block once someone processes that case. I'm not sure what you're complaining about, to be honest. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

These aren't my accounts!! I can't help what these people post. Please what evidence do you have that these are mine? And if they were mine, why would I bring more people's attention to the investigation? GroundRisk (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Stills

Dear Spike,

Thanks for leaving the link so I can reply. This will not be a psychotic message. Happy Memorial Day.

You wrote:

> However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Stephen Stills are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you.

I apologize, I'm sure I never went "General Discussion" like that before. Maybe there's an unmet demand for Wikipedia to provide discussion-links from the articles. If provided, I'm sure it would multiply our love for Wikipedia. I understand that would increase the size of Wikipedia from millions of terabytes to billions of terabytes, but memory is getting cheaper and cheaper.

A comment on the present system, if I may. You see how our communications are more effective when I copied your message to me -- You do this a dozen times a day, and it helps you to see what people are responding to. Conversely, since my noncompliant comment has disappeared, I don't remember what spiffy comment I wrote, anymore. So, I I'm left without being able to follow your advice.

I bet noncompliant messages happen frequently; if there might be a way to return peoples' noncompliant general comments to them -- perhaps in the message alerting them to their noncompliance, there would be a much better chance of them following your advice regarding how to correctly process them.

Best luck,

-neil- (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

B Yellow

I don't understand why my page B Yellow keeps getting deleted. All I want is a wiki page telling people about our band, is that so much to ask? I personally thought that playing 3 years running at the UK's biggest free festival was pretty major and notable but obviously not :( Could I ask for some help in getting the page up to standards that Wikipedia requires, not asking for anything major, just for the minimum that allows it to stay on Wikipedia without being threatened with deletion every day. Thanks for your time. XxDalekcaanxx (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: The deleted page can be viewed at my user space. XxDalekcaanxx (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Your band is not notable, that's the problem. I can't give you help creating the article because the article should not be here. Playing at festivals does not make your band notable. Additionally, if you are in the band or related to the band, you have a conflict of interest and shouldn't be working on the article anyway. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

So your saying the band has to be a big band to get on here? That sucks.... XxDalekcaanxx (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily big, just notable. If you can find some articles in secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, major music web sites, etc.) in which the band is the primary subject, then we can talk. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


I have been told time and time again by numerous editors (because I used to use rowspans before I knew any better) that rowspans affect accessibility for screen readers - you can read more at User:RexxS/Accessibility. And that's what I thought Monterrosa just didn't know any better. So I removed the rowspans, wrote on his talk page about not using them and I thought that was that. Until he wrote on my talk page saying I was "lying" about the use of rowspans and told me not to change it again. I again warned him about the use and explained that it causes difficulty for the screen readers of the vision impaired and hearing impaired. Obviously he didn't care and kept doing it to the point of edit warring. Lady Lotus (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm asking for a link to any official documentation or consensus about the use of rowspans. A user subpage is not very relevant. I don't disagree with you, but without any official MoS entry or general consensus, it looks like just a disagreement between you two. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:ACTOR#Filmography_tables Does this count? Lady Lotus (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

File:EVHGuitarReplicaSquare.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Lindsey Buckingham

I saw your edit reverting an IP editor. This abusive editor does little else but remove "best known for" from BLP articles, and there's an ANI report ongoing if you fancy wading in – Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive IP. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

And obviously he's reverted you, because that's what he does... [3]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
IP blocked for the third time, but I'm sure he'll be back. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

re GabeMac

Spike Wilbury, you're either choosing to take a blinkered view of what's been going on or you appear to condone an editor behaving without any basic consideration for others. It was most definitely "in the interest of peace and harmony" that I left the first message for GabeMc. He and I have had our differences in the past, and it was unusual (to put it mildly) to see him taking on a song article I'd recently helped promote to GA. Unusual to see him editing any Harrison song article, actually, as far as I am aware. It would have been easy for him to reply then that he intended to edit the entire article – I can't think why one wouldn't. And given past difficulties, I think it would've been eminently sensible to do so.

Without taking the issue to the article talk page for consensus, he then completely revised the method of citation to a style he prefers when one was already applied consistently throughout. Apart from it being a requirement to reach consensus first, it's just common decency to do so surely. Given the continued lack of communication from him, compared to the frenzy of activity on the article, it was easy to read an antagonistic/"I'll show you" message in his actions, to be honest – hence my second message. In fact, it seems the motive might also have been related to his unwillingness to accept the outcome of a Guild of Copy Editors vote. I don't know, this could be a case of me drawing a very long bow, I admit – but I noticed he'd submitted "Sue Me, Sue You Blues" for the next Edit of the Month competition while continuing to act as if he has a divine right to deciding article content without any need for consultation with others. And it's relevant to note that, at least in my experience, few editors guard the content of articles they've helped promote as rigorously as GabeMc does.

I don't disagree with you regarding the need to hash out specific issues of article content and wording with Gabe, take them to the article's talk page and consider dispute resolution if necessary. I'm just dismayed that in your "mild bemusement", you've read the situation as meriting a request on my talk page while Gabe appears to have your wholehearted support. JG66 (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)
1) Re: "Unusual to see him editing any Harrison song article". FWIW, I was a co-nom on the George Harrison FAC, and not that it matters regarding our current dispute, but George Harrison is one of my top all-time favourite musicians ever and "SMSYB" is one of my favourite songs of his.
2) Re: "It would have been easy for him to reply then that he intended to edit the entire article – I can't think why one wouldn't." It's not complicated, you're approach is condescending and arrogant. I don't answer to you, nor will I ever. I don't need to explain my intentions to someone who is hands down the most impossible person I have ever dealt with on Wikipedia.
3) Re: "he then completely revised the method of citation to a style he prefers when one was already applied consistently throughout." No, that's completely inaccurate. I did not change the citation method used in the article mark-up in any way shape or form (nor did you start the article from scratch as you've claimed). I merely implemented the citation templates to the bibliography so as to increase the likelihood that newer editors will adopt a consistent style. Anyway, is there an existing consensus at the article page clearly against the formatting of the references mark-up or the use of templates, or is this your own personal preference JG? FTR, I would be more than happy to dialog with you if it had ever accomplished anything, but IME it never has. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 08:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be adding more to this issue on your talk page, Spike Wilbury, but I just want to clarify a couple of points:

  • Not that it matters a whole lot, but I did indeed start this song article. For some reason I can't fathom now, I called it "Sue Me, Sue You Blues (song)", submitting the first edit on 20 March 2012. At the same time, or shortly afterwards, user:Rlendog began working on an article for the song, removing the redirect for "Sue Me, Sue You Blues" on 21 March. Rlendog then merged the two, using what he said was mostly my version.
  • Comparing the wording in the bibliography/list of sources, what was previously "Chip Madinger & Mark Easter, Eight Arms to Hold You: The Solo Beatles Compendium, 44.1 Productions (Chesterfield, MO, 2000; ISBN 0-615-11724-4)" has now become Harvard style: "Madinger, Chip; Easter, Mark (2000). Eight Arms to Hold You: The Solo Beatles Compendium. Chesterfield, MO: 44.1 Productions. ISBN 0-615-11724-4." I would describe that as completely revising the method/style. I'm not a fan of the Harvard method of referencing personally; but I don't necessarily object to how it looks now, it's the fact that the issue wasn't first raised on the talk page for community consensus that bothered me. JG66 (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll gladly concede your first point, but the second is a matter of WP:BRD. There is no harm whatsoever in the mark-up formatting change in the bibliography (its more in keeping with the Beatles project as a whole), but if my bold move to list the author's last name first and use citation templates that encourage project consistency is a bone of contention IYO, then please bring it up on the appropriate talk page, versus making humiliating and disparaging comments at my talk page. If you remain respectful, I will respond accordingly. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 09:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I believe it's a matter of WP:CITEVAR. --Stfg (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Found a new project hey Stfg? Well, I really don't care either way, so I'll go remove the templates now. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Templates removed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, im sorry and thank you for correcting this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Marty Friedman

Hello, I believe there has been a misunderstanding. My edit I made to the =Marty Friedman= page was not meant to be either a "joke" or "amusing". I was simply posting a a true fact about his life. It's a known fact that Friedman is Jewish. However, it's hard to find articles on the internet that explicitly say so. With that being the case I'd like you to please keep my edit on the page. If you find a better internet that I can use as a reference related to his Judaism, please let me know. -Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostich36 (talkcontribs) 19:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was supposed to be a joke because the link you left as a source leads to a picture of Sarah Palin with a caption about male genitalia. It has nothing to do with Marty Friedman. Anyway, we wouldn't put something like that in the lead unless you have sources indicating the subject strongly identifies with being Jewish. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

music genre changes

You said "I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Ronnie James Dio, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you to seek consensus for certain edits. Thank you. Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)"

The changes i made are accurate. You need reliable sources? Just listen to the music. Dio played doom/heavy metal with Sabbath/Heaven and hell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Your own opinion is not considered a reliable source. Please check out Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Genre changes/additions require discussion; you cannot simply make unilateral changes with no discussion as you've been attempting to do. What you regard as "accurate" might not be the consensus. ChakaKongtalk 20:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

IP Block

I see you blocked User talk: recently for vandalizing the Evolution talk page. He's back. Do you know where I should report this? TippyGoomba (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I blocked them again. Thanks for the heads-up. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

File:EVHGuitarReplicaSquare.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as my brother is in his band and just talked to Bobby's ex, He died last night 10/31/2013, of a heart attack, brought on by an asthma attack. He was at home in Temple hills Maryland! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddbonewoman (talkcontribs) 19:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No prob on the Zep post but I am confused as to why you deleted my sandbox. I have been under the impression that a sandbox is personal space used for editing practice and the creation of new articles. Many Thanks, Walt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Miles (talkcontribs) 19:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Lol what?

Exactly what edit did I make?... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)