User talk:Spike Wilbury/Archive 8

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

Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9


What's good, sexy?

-- Y not? 23:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Ithaca. :) --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you serious? That's cool. What are you up to over there? -- Y not? 04:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Working for Cornell now. Weather sucks. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Mazel tov! Plz holler when you come down to the NYC area next - I will be buying you lunch/dinner/etc. -- Y not? 20:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


Hey, Spike. It turns out that one of the images you found—File:Hendrix in Army.jpg—was PD. Nice work! Hope all is well. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Good news. You did really well on the article; congratulations! --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Spike,

thanks for pointing out the need to explain the changes made (re: Voynich). I've now re-introduced them and gave a short explanation. Any doubt please let me know.


Titus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titus Marcus Marcellus (talkcontribs) 14:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


It appears that Mrwallace05 is also editing as KLFEE. Piriczki (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the heads-up. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

He is behaving badly

See here. I think he and I should both move on. QuackGuru (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello Spike, thanks for the advice, you can rest assured I will follow it. Nonetheless, I think it's utterly impossible to reach a consensus with user 27.122.12.* since he is completely biased against the company. I'm just trying to be objective and balance the article since all the presented information is focused on the legal disputes of the company. What do you propose we should do in this case? Naruto2839 (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is currently protected because of the dispute and edit warring, so the best thing to do is work out disagreements on the article talk page. Once you build consensus there, other editors should respect it and can be blocked if they edit war against consensus. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Links to web pages containing copyright violations

Please do not add external links to web pages hosting copyright violations, as you did to Jimi Hendrix. The site you linked is not authorized or licensed to provide access to copyrighted concert footage. If you have added such links elsewhere, please remove them. Thanks! --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Which "access to copyrighted concert footage" are you talking about?!? There's no such thing anywhere in this web site !?! HurluGumene (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. I thought that site was actually hosting video footage of the concert content. At any rate, it is not an acceptable source per WP:RS. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with you: this site IS evidently a reliable source !!! HurluGumene (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello friend Spike

Hello friend, You blocked me because I was not following the rules of the wikipedia.

I am new to wikipedia first of all. Whatever I was adding were from reliable source and great scholars.

I have got the following problems whenever I add any content with source the following tragedy happens to me.

1. Whenever I add any content with reliable source and citation. A user revert it by saying that it is unreliable sources.

2. When I add more source with more source. He reverts it by saying that its a rip off and not a good source or a reliable source.

3. Whatever I add its reverted by some of mischievous people.

4. I have found many other articles too and they have the source too ..its similiar like me..some reverts it and some don't.

Can you please help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astronautabhinavstar (talkcontribs) 18:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


Thanks I will try my best to develop consensus.

But can you see the below user who has been undoing the revision of various Wikipedia Articles regularly?

He even did mine. Below is the link how he is reverting the edits of other wikipedia Articles.

With regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astronautabhinavstar (talkcontribs) 12:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of editors that watch a lot of pages and will revert changes that don't seem appropriate. This shouldn't be seen as negative behavior. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request on one of your blocks

I would appreciate your commenting on the unblock request pending at User talk:Beatleswhobeachboys. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Bluesy Funkk

Could you please elaborate as to why Sting is not Bluesy Funk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Genres are frequently debated on music article here, so it's best to provide a reliable source for such a change. Can you provide reliable music publications indicating Sting is "Bluesy Funk"? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for your detailed response to my request for input. I understand why you were suspicious, but I have Checkuser'd and the accounts are unrelated. I have unblocked accordingly. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing after warning

re your advice [1] he has failed to follow it, multiple times. [2] [3] [4] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Heleen Mees talk page - Bmwz3hm

Bmwz3hm is adding :'s to other peoples' comments on the Heleen Mees talk page. (For example, Is that allowed? --TheCockroach (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


Despite the block, Bmwz3hm doesn't seem to have learned anything, except to be more sneaky. Today she has reverted the article to an almost identical version to that which resulted in her block.[5] However, she has done it in a way that wasn't completely obvious, first making significant changes to the article and then, two edits later, sneaking back in her preferred version that has no consensus. I've explained this in detail at Talk:Heleen Mees#Sneaky edit-warring before reverting the article and I've left a, admittedly terse, note on her talk page. Given your comments at the AN3 discussion about monitoring her, I thought it best to notify you before I took this to AN3 again. --AussieLegend () 03:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

While posting the above, Bmwz3hm has reverted again.[6] --AussieLegend () 03:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have issued another block, unfortunately. I hope this user can come to understand the consensus building process. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I doubt we're going to have a lot of success but we can always hope. --AussieLegend () 13:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
This has really gotten ridiculous. After her last block expired, Bmwz3hm didn't return to the article. Instead she reverted to meat and sockpuppetry. In one of her Twitter posts she actually thanks someone for his efforts. Pending changes protection was added to the article and that had some effect. Of course that made Bmwz3hm return to the page and she breached 3RR AGAIN so I've opened a new report. Unfortunately somebody has come along and fully protected the article with her edits as the protected version so I guess she's happy now. What's next? We start blocking legitimate editors who revert vandalism? --AussieLegend () 15:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
@AussieLegend:, unfortunately I am traveling at the moment and haven't had time to fully look into what's happened in the last few days. I trust the other admins who have gotten involved have the matter in hand. Please continue to work with them and/or post to the appropriate noticeboards for assistance, as I won't be able to devote due attention to this until at least Saturday. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Astronautabhinavstar / User:Craig Mellow

Hi. Have a look please; I'm afraid they may be the same. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

As you see, IP is dynamic, heavily used. Blocks cannot stop this person from editing B. R. Ambedkar, I think it is better to protect this page. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I've semi-protected the page for a week. I will consider longer if that doesn't work. In the mean time, please report any other obvious socks. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I think you should notify Astronautabhinavstar about WP:STANDARDOFFER. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

In Reply to Your Message Regarding Roxanne Fontana Article

Thank you very much for your message, which I have just received.

No, I am not, and do not work for, Roxanne Fontana, and there are no corporations involved, with me or with this entry. I made some corrections a few days ago (for example, I removed the word 'prolific' in regards to her catalog). Can you please help me? Can you refer me to which parts of this article don't seem neutral, so that I may adjust them without altering the facts?

I do admire Roxanne Fontana, and this is my first article on Wikipedia, and I do have ideas for other articles I'd like to submit and edit. Therefore, any input that you can give me, so that I can do this well, would really help. I really did put a lot of time and effort into this article, with research on Roxanne, and I'm still discovering more. I studied many Wikipedia articles extensively. Please can you write me back, and tell me what I'm missing that damages this article's neutrality?

Regards, Brooklyn Smith (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Content on Dr.Ambedkar page

Dear Spike,

I read that on Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar's page, a few modifications have been done. Requesting your kind attention to correct the edits. I already posted following through the portal. Thank you, "Recently found out that following text from his page is deleted. "Jurist, politician, philosopher, anthropologist, historian and economist" and instead is currently replaced by "Indian lawyer, politician and academic" A kind request to restore the original text as it suits best for Dr.Ambedkar. There are various references to prove each of these diverse qualities of his. He solely wrote the Constitution of India and was a Minister of Law. He had sound knowledge of History and anthropology. The Nobel prize winner Economist Mr.Amartyasen mentions Dr.Ambedkar as his Father in Economy. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1prashant (talkcontribs) 17:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

May I ask where you have read this? Because the article seems to have attracted the sudden interest of several editors whose accounts have been previously inactive. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion

If you could, please take a look at this ANI discussion I started about SergiSmiler. I really feel that this needs to be looked at and addressed. This user is incredibly disruptive and I've tried to reason but he refuses to listen. LADY LOTUSTALK 15:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

After looking for a few minutes, it seems the user is making some minimal progress, and at least is trying to find sources. I see also that he has corresponded with @Kww:, who is an admin. Do you feel like the situation can't be salvaged? It doesn't look like he's trying to be disruptive, but we may have an insurmountable language barrier or possible WP:CIR issue. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
He is getting better but the language barrier is still an issue and getting him to the point of him understanding he needs to use reliable sources was hard. He says he uses a translator for all of his English but yes it is, in my opinion anyway, an WP:CIR issue. I think a lot of his edits are fan-based and I don't think it quite understands that if it's not an encyclopedic benefit, it gets removed. I tried telling him that because of the language barrier, if he wanted to make an edit, to take it to the talk page, his response I barely understood but I took it as he doesn't think his English is bad. LADY LOTUSTALK 17:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
My thought is that if he edit wars again, he will receive an extended block, maybe 3 months due to his history of warnings and blocks. The incident you reported, which unfortunately got archived before anyone looked at it, would be considered "stale" I think. I can post a note to his talk page about this. Seeking a community ban is quite another matter; you usually have to open a thread at WP:ANI and post plenty of evidence that all manner of solutions have been tried with this individual. I'm not confident that the next block is going to have any more effect than the last, but at the same time I don't feel comfortable taking any admin action at this point other than issuing a warning. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I appreciate you looking into this. Whatever you think at this point is the best thing to do, I will support. Thanks again :) LADY LOTUSTALK 18:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank You for Your Reply Re: Roxanne Fontana Article

Thank you for your reply. I will read the link you provided, and go back over the article with a fine-toothed comb. Thank you for your support; I am glad to play a role in Wikipedia's mission! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooklyn Smith (talkcontribs) 19:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hypocrisy .,...

Hypocrites like Bladesmulti revert the change. Ambedkar is the father of Indian Constitution. He is Bharata ratna "jewel of India" There were many other users who supported that claim and It was Bladesmulti who is a casteist and his hypocracy. Are you the owner of Wikipedia? First know who Dr.Ambedkar was rather than reverting the page and showing your attitude and acting in Ignorance (talk) 07:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


I see you removed talk page access Bmwz3hm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for block evasion. You may need to whack a mole with this one, as they're using socks to continue doing so. [7]. WCMemail 11:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Spike, I think you should consider restoring talk page access for the Bmwz3hm account. Their invoking the BLP would be a valid reason, in my opinion. Sure, proxy editing is not allowed, and if anyone were to simply copy and paste their suggestions that would be a good thing, but I don't see why just restoring talk page access would be a cause for disruption, as long as they refrain from personal attacks etc. We have CU evidence, and the article is still protected, so any possible sock attempts can't be very disruptive either. Please consider it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: I think this is a bad idea. There is a firm consensus among editors who have been in conflict with Bmwz3hm that they have some kind of COI/POV, and they were blocked (repeatedly) for violating our editorial policies and standards. If their sole interest is correcting supposed BLP violations in the article, we have channels for people to do that via WP:BLPCOMPLAINT. But that's not their sole interest. I'm just one voice of course; if you want to restore the access and keep an eye on the situation, you are more than welcome. I think it will end badly. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, thing is that they don't have a lot of options anymore without talk page access, so the only channel that's left is emailing, and that, as you know, is not the easiest way to suggest edits if only because it leaves "regular" editors out of the loop. Now, there doesn't need to be consensus about the COI because that's obvious--but that COI doesn't mean that our article doesn't require balance anymore. I'm going to wait until I hear more, and I appreciate your response. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe that when a user is blocked for behavioral issues, they have lost their privilege to suggest edits and influence the article content, especially when it's the same article they behaved badly on. It's not like we're talking about egregious BLP violations here; the editor is basically still trying to get their preferred version in place. They weren't blocked for unrelated cause; they were blocked for trying to get their preferred version in place at any cost. That seems pretty clear-cut to me. But I do want to restate that I have no problem with my admin actions being reversed if you're planning to take responsibility for what ensues. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


Hi Spike, thanks for your views on OR in the Breaking Bad article, I'm a little concerned over my own reverting there and hope I haven't gone too far with my latest one, I'm stopping there and will use the WP:DR process as needed, but if I need to revert my own revert, let me know and I'll be happy to do so. Thanks! Ghostwheel ʘ 14:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Brilliant Idea Barnstar Hires.png The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For simply treating a copyvio as a copyvio, leaving a lot of slack-jawed editors wondering why they didn't think of that and not one arguing with you. NebY (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Jews and Communism

Are you going to check through the original version now? Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you look Ambedkar page?

I ask you kindly look Ambedkar Page and the user theredpedofdoom , he is constantly reverting the edits of other articles also. He removed the table from Ambedkar page. With regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Wikipedia administrators are prompt to threaten innocent contributors... HurluGumene (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

My being an administrator has nothing to do with it. I provided a comment on the page where the dispute lay, and warned you that you will be reported for edit warring if you keep it up. I would not take administrative action against you because I have an opinion about the dispute. Your edits are unreasonable and against consensus. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...

Hi! Would you care to review or comment/vote (support/oppose) at my FA nomination for the article New York Dolls (album)? Information on reviewing an FA nomination's criteria is available at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. I don't know much about that band so it should be an interesting read. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit

In accordance with Wikipedia which states "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone," I made a minor revision on the George Harrison page to the sentence, "While in Switzerland, Starr visited him, but had to cut his stay short to travel to Los Angeles, where his daughter was undergoing emergency brain surgery, prompting Harrison to quip: 'Do you want me to come with you?'" I changed the location from Los Angeles to Boston after seeing a Ringo Starr interview in which Ringo himself said twice he left Switzerland to go to Boston for his daughter's surgery and George said, 'Do you want me to come with you?' Ringo went on to say those were the last words he heard George say. The Wikipedia article on Ringo's daughter also states, "She was transferred to a hospital in the United States to continue with her treatment. Within three weeks, she was undergoing a second operation at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston." Other articles also mention the surgery was at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. Based on several news reports and Ringo himself saying he traveled from Switzerland to Boston for the surgery, I believe the George Harrison page should be changed back to my original edit of Boston and not Los Angeles. I'm curious. What sources do you have that said the surgery was in Los Angeles? I can't find anything that says Los Angeles is where Ringo's daughter's surgery was other than the Guardian article cited as a source which seems to be quoting the interview I saw, but misquotes Ringo by saying he went to Los Angeles, when in fact he said he went to Boston.

iflyfa18s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iflyfa18s (talkcontribs) 03:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for the note. The source we have in the article currently (the first footnote after that sentence) states, "Starr had to leave because his daughter was undergoing emergency brain surgery in Los Angeles." The source is a Guardian article here. So, it seems we have a situation of sources disagreeing with one another which is not uncommon. If you can produce sources (link to the interview, etc.) that say Boston, the Guardian may be wrong and we should change the article. If you have only one, we'll have to have a discussion about which one is likely to be correct. It would be best to post these to Talk:George Harrison for discussion. Pinging User:GabeMc as well as he is a major editor on that article and may know more about it. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

inventory control system

Hello Spike Wilbury. thanks for the notice, this was not a "soapbox", i was in the middle of adding more articles, testimonials and actual academic data from Vizbee's site - and i though that they deserve the credit, especially because the previous link from RFID radio was false and led to nowhere. if the current wikipedia policy is to take information from other sites/ companies without giving them credit - i'd like to know that. thanks, Anaelle.blonder 15:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Keef Richards

Please refrain from using offensive words regarding the work of your fellow editors, such as "what is this crap?". It so happens I am responsible for inserting the estuary English name "Keef" in Keith Richards. The edit is based on the sources already included in the article. There exist numerous others, online or in print. Richards was called and listed variously as "Keith" and "Keef" in magazines, newspapers and fanzines in the 1960s, a practice reflecting the subject's class and provenance. It would, in fact, be preposterous not to include this (quite notable) appellation. As to the rules regarding the leading paragraphs, please note that a nickname need not necessarily be repeated elsewhere (see paragraph titled "Relative emphasis"). But, if you find that necessary, it can be easily done. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for referring to your material as "crap", and I'll take your knuckle-rapping gracefully. However, I still don't agree with your inclusion of the material or your interpretation of WP:LEAD, nor does User:Piriczki apparently. You'll have to gain consensus on the article talk page if you want to re-add it. For something to be in the article, it should be well-sourced (meaning we are citing multiple reliable sources saying this is a significant nickname for him); for something to be in the lead, we should be citing sources indicating why it's so important as to be mentioned in the lead. I've seen a few flippant references to Richards as "Keef" in pop magazines and in his autobiography Life, but nothing approaching notable use. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
One of the leading references cited in the article is an Independent text titled "Keith Richards: Being Keef" and dated 2011. But I will scare up some more and start a discussion in the Talk page. It still amazes me that this is even an issue but I will put it down to probably a difference in age! In the 60s, "Keef Richard" was quite common. (Note absence of "s" per estuary English practice.) -The Gnome (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


Who the fuck asked you for your opinion you think you can slag me off behind me back. I have not warred with anyone I have had disagreements in the past with people and they have been sorted, if people like you looked for the positive in people instead of always looking for the negative the world would be a better place. All the times I have removed vandalism from WWE pages and helped fill in results in UFC event pages but you just try to find the faults. He is just as guilty as me we have both been involved in edit warring and I am willing to discuss the edits and get what is best for the page put in. Lukejordan02 (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to comment on a noticeboard report, and it's hardly "behind your back" since you were notified of the discussion. It's interesting that you frame your edit wars as "disagreements", but however you cut it, I've observed that you are very quick to edit war with anyone who disagrees with you. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The way you are trying to paint me is a vandal which I am not, I only want what's best for the pages and I have already admitted to not going about the edits the best way and that I am willing to discuss and they are disagreements I already explained most of them above on the board and have spend many hours doing hard work edits on some pages. Lukejordan02 (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I've seen you make a lot of great edits. There are pages I watch that you've made huge changes to (for example, Van Halen discography) and I had no issues at all with your edits. So I do not think you are a vandal. All I'm saying is that you don't edit very harmoniously with other people, especially when they disagree with you, and I'm afraid that's going to land you in hot water. I don't want to see you get blocked because then you won't be helping anyone. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I know I can have a chip on my soldier at times but I mean well and want to improve the pages and I am sorry for talking to you like it did before. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI, in case you want to keep apprised

[8] MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

small update edit

Hi Spike

I dont get it, I add a small update edit link to 2014 scientific compilation site,

with a dozen contributors and you have a conflict problem? I just don't get it.

The only real conflict is that it contrary to the old incorrect views. You are only

preserving out of date incorrect info. Its 2014, time for some updates !


S — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stexxxx (talkcontribs) 17:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

My problem is that there is no indication of why this web site should be considered a reliable reference. Please read WP:RS for more information about reliable sources on Wikipedia. Additionally, if you are involved with this site, you have a conflict of interest and should not be inserting links to your web site on Wikipedia. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User going straight back to warring after block

Greetings Spike. Recently, you blocked Soffredo (talk · contribs) for editwarring on Elizabeth II. After coming off the block, they within days went back and tried to get their change in again. Can you inform them that the talkpage is a place to reach consensus, not a place just to post their opinion while they make whatever edits they want despite a consensus against on talkpage? Regards, CMD (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hm, it seems that the user is engaged in discussion now, would you agree? I will keep an eye on the article, but hopefully they will keep discussing at this point rather than trying to make the change again. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't agree they're "engaged in discussion", they're simply reiterating the same thing again and again without addressing the responses of others. This is part of a long history of ignoring the input and opinions of others, and frankly the fact that even a block didn't put them off is indicative of their attitude. Even the times they use the talkpage, they ignore it. For example, they started the discussion Talk:List_of_sovereign_states#IAEA_membership_.2F_designated_name and then simply ignored it and went ahead and made the changes without an edit summary a few days on. The current Elizabeth II is not the first attempt to push their viewpoint through there either. The previous discussion can be seen at Talk:Elizabeth_II/Archive_29#Niue and the Cook Islands in the Infobox. CMD (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
What I meant is that they are at least posting to the talk page instead of making the edit. Whether they can be talked down or made to understand consensus is a question which will be answered when they either drop the issue (good) or make the edit again (bad). I'm loathe to take any action at least until they attempt to edit against consensus again. Then I would support a block. I will drop them a note. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I understand that blocks are preventative rather than punitive, and thus you not taking action in this instance makes sense. It's the long term trend though, rather than specific instances, which is harder to address. Hopefully your note will help. Regards, CMD (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Siddheart

Told by Bbb23 to inform you about the report. You can share your opinion here. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay you can do your investigation. Truth always wins. I am not a Liar. With regards. Siddheart (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is very bizarre that so many editors with the same rhetorical style have shown up with an interest in making the same content edits to Ambedkar. You're either all the same person, or there is some coordinated campaign elsewhere to get people to use new or sleeper accounts to push a POV. Several editors have messaged me asking for assistance with the Ambedkar article, but each of them has conveniently ignored my inquiry about where they came from and how they heard about this article. So I'll put the same question to you, User:Siddheart. You made one edit back in 2011, and then you suddenly resumed editing three years later with a keen interest in the Ambedkar article. Why is that? --Spike Wilbury (|talk]]) 01:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for being kind. I swear by the womb from which I am born that I am not a sock dear User talk:Spike Wilbury of which I found out the meaning of Wikipedia itself > Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. I am not a POV pusher at all. I am from Maharashtra.

You may dig out the history of Caste system in India and you will find only 2 leaders. 1.Gandhi and 2. Ambedkar. These were the main. Ambedkar is the chief architect of Indian constitution and was born in a low caste family. He became the first law minister of India. He had the highest education among Indians (than anyone else) during his own time from Columbia University etc. You can watch yourself on wikipedia and also contemporary figures of his time. He wrote thesis in London. He was an Economist, barrister and he played an important role in forming Reserve bank of India. Barack Obama when he visited India said that we must draw inspiration from a Dalit (Low caste)who could lift himself up. Professor Amartya Sen (Noble Prize Winner) calls him his father in Economy. He has been righting on the problem of rupee and other related things.

I don't even know why I have to tell such things . He is already popular in Indian Politics. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi payed respect to his statue on his 4th April Birthday. Dalai Lama has the portrait of Dr.Ambedkar inside his office. He converted to Buddhism and he is a major Buddhist revivalist in India. He is being respect in the Indian Buddhist communities and also in Dalit (Low caste communities).

You can keep a watch on Dr. Ambedkar's page accordingly. I rarely come on wikipedia and I edit it. I have been reported as a Sock Puppet which I think is not fine.Every-time any change is made,he is labelled to be as a Sock Puppet. I also invite you to investigate other users both negative, positive or neutral editors editing on Dr.Ambedkar's page. Please check all other users too. I hereby raise this. I can sense that some of the users keep on reverting some of the changes whenever any positive comment is made about him. Please also dig out who were the users (if you wish to) those who did Sock puppetry on wikipedia. I am not one of them.

With Best regards and thanks for your generosity shown towards me. Have a nice day. :) Siddheart (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
He's just going to lecture about 'ambedkar', and ignore the real question. If I saw same editing pattern, I will tell you. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not creating any nuisance or anything else. Bladesmulti, will you please forgive me if I ever made any mistake in contributions to wikipedia. I just editied two pages. You are seeing an editing pattern.I welcome that.I admit that one user who's name is Astronautabhinavstar is a sock puppet and an Idiot (sorry to say that).

Spike brother I edit wikipedia sometimes only and through internet cafe. I have no particular reasons why I resumed it. I just made an Edit and saw it reverted. I hope we can move further because doubt has no cure. With regards to both of you from the bottom of my heart. , Siddheart (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Republika Srpska

Following this, we now have this identical revert. Would you be willing to keep any eye on developments there? Writegeist (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am watching it. It looks like this new editor has been warned of discretionary sanctions for Balkans articles; I am going to do the same with CarRadovan. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I want to ask is there any way to find all latest changes by users in WikiProject Azerbaijan? There was toolserver tool but now they removed it, I don't know what to do.--Yacatisma (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Recently blocked user back to tiring, persistent disruptive editing possible vandalism which is annoying

Hi, Spike Wilbury. I noticed that you have blocked User:Jimi Lewis, but he is back. Block him again. Forever this time. We cannot stand how he vandalises this pages by adding genres without any sources - persistently. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 05:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Ambedkar is being disrespected and misrepresented on Shudra

Hi Spike Wilbury, I thought I would draw your attention to this page Shudra where Ambedkar is being deliberately maligned: I have reverted to my neutral and cautiously worded version thrice, and discussed the matter at length with the editor to reach a consensus all to no avail. This is my edit:

Also, please note how the word "untouchable" is being used in a malicious way to describe Ambedkar and how it is being justified on Talk:Shudra. Would it be possible for you to intervene in this matter and revert to my evidence-backed and balanced edit? Thanks. -Spark121212 (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Objective title formats

Hi there. You rescued Chicago XXXVI: Now from lameness, thanks. When I wrote it, I did email a couple members of the band to voice my frustration as an archivalist. I guess Robert doesn't like the roman numerals, and has been trying to jack that process at least as far back as Sisyphus. After having spent days writing the whole thing, I was too frustrated to engage that, and I was waiting for someone to do something. ;) When you did, I finally went looking for policy on the subject. I found a bunch of semi-vague stuff. I'd have to look it up again, but it's vague. I believe it was talking about examples with particular albums, and falls back to using common sense and just making sense. And then there's the concept of "popular" usage, but I'd say that requires quite a set of examples from RSes to establish. In the case of Chicago XXXVI though, it's popularly used about 4 different ways because they named it so dumbly. Quotation marks inside an album name?!!! It looks like a name chosen to placate a committee. Wat. Another example is the periodic "debate" at Talk:Macintosh#Requested_move_08_July_2014, which of course exists with absolutely no given evidence and in pointless defiance of longstanding consensus on exactly the same issue on the same page, with nothing having changed since then. To me, those two issues (Chicago album and computer name) are the same issue. It's just a matter of nicknaming and branding, which are inherently cosmetic. We don't rename "Mountain Dew" to "Dew" even if they refer to it as that in all the ads and on the shelves and inventory systems. So, do you have anything concrete on the naming of titles objectively vs. brands? Thank you very much indeedily. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 01:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi Spike, I actually made a mistake making that edit, thanks for correcting it, I was going to go back and correct it myself. I had misread the credits on the album and thought "Sweet May" wasn't on it. Re why I didn't show why I made the change, I don't know how to do that, I only know a bit about how to edit the articles themselves. Anyway, thanks again, good to know someone is watching. Hetriedtodohisbest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hetriedtodohisbest (talkcontribs) 21:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Notability or therefore lack of regarding AT4W.

Regarding your revert, ok I get that not every show is notable, but I'm curious as to how AT4W lacks notability. I mean it's still a part of the site and has been since 2009, plus has had a frequent & consistent release of episodes. Lewis/Linkara has had a good number of appearances on the Nostalgia Critic, as well as the site's specials. Antiyonder (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Heck, upon looking at the list of episodes on the site, his first videos infact were out since November 2008. Antiyonder (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the general problem is that where a few lines would suffice, fans begin to add to the page and these sections grow until they exceed any sane level of detail for Wikipedia's purposes (see Wikipedia:Summary style). This is the reason why topics which attract large amounts of fan input (like Star Wars, LOTR, etc.) have specialized wikia communities where all this depth is appropriate. TGWTT is obviously notable as a site, but are the individual series and events notable enough to merit their own sections? I'm just one voice in the crowd, but I'm trying to maintain some semblance of conciseness on the page. What do you think? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Also @Antiyonder:, the section for AT4W didn't actually provide any secondary sources indicating that it's notable. The reason The Cinema Snob and Nostalgia Critic are there is because they have been covered independently in reliable sources. Can you locate some good sources for AT4W per WP:RS? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Depends. For the sake of examples, what are the secondary sources that the Snob and Critic (and maybe the Chick since she's mentioned on the wikia) have? Antiyonder (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
It looks like The Cinema Snob has been the subject of a couple of newspaper articles, Nostalgia Chick was written about in a book (what the book is about, I have no idea), and Nostalgia Critic is actually notable enough to have its own article (Nostalgia Critic) that is pretty well-sourced. So I suppose a good starting point is whether the series has been the subject of articles in the entertainment media. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Re Malcolm

I wasn't happy to make it either, but Wikipedia has no feelings, I'm afraid.--Gorpik (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

User whose goal appears to be specifically attacking you

That seems to be the only reason he's here. His username is User:888anon, thought you might want to have a look and/or block him.Jinkinson talk to me 22:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

He's upset because I deleted 2 hoax articles he created. He's blocked now. Thanks for the heads-up! --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Sting page

Thanks for reverting the edit by I have reason to believe this is the same user as, who has consistently changed the sales figure from 100 million to 200 million and been consistently blocked for it. Rodericksilly (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

About the EidosMedia page

Good evening. About EidosMedia, I know the company and I’ve heard rumours about this debate around their wiki page. Out of curiosity I checked the page during the weekend and I saw the version mentioning only negative points, compared the previous version and decided that the latter was a fairer representation of the company: the easiest solution, to my knowledge, was simply restoring the page. I have no idea on who is DSeeB user or who is the other user who is making edits to the page.

Finally, while I don’t want at all to enter a war on this page, I can tell you that the company exists and a lot of good people is working there: that’s the reason why I think it’s a nonsense to have their page reduced to a list of negative comments.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Hawke (talkcontribs) 17:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Lonepine17 (talk · contribs) & West Bloomfield Township, Michigan

The above editor was blocked 24hrs by you on October 1 or 2 for edit warring over the use of the term "affluent" in the lede of the above named article. He took a week plus break and this evening again added that term to that article. The entirety of his contribution list is adding that term to this article, most times with edit summaries that include personal attacks. I am asking you to reblock him indefinately this time as an obvious case of nothere. I am editing from my phone or I would have posted this at ANI. My phone will not load ANI due to its size. For the same reason, pls ping when you answer. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: thanks for the notice. I'm not willing to jump to an indefinite block quite yet, but I've given them a longer block and will continue to monitor the situation. I like to hold out hope that each person can become a useful editor once they understand our policies. I have also applied a semi-protection to the West Bloomfield Twp page in case the editor tries to change it again while logged out. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Please see this edit made to his talk page while blocked. Does that get him indef'd? John from Idegon (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Amt000

Hi, Spike. Personally and as an administrator, I have always felt that current block notices, including additional comments to the standard notice, should not be removable by the user while they are blocked. However, my view on this matter was not followed in a relatively recent community discussion that caused a change to WP:BLANKING. Thus, in this instance, you should not have reinstated the block notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the heads up. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel

Hi, Spike, I'm the admin who indeffed Til Eulenspiegel. I don't agree with removing his tp access, as I think that should only be done in extreme cases; not just because people vent. Til isn't posting in a pleasant vein, I know, but there is something displeasing in gagging a person completely, unless they're attacking individuals or otherwise being outrageous (such as racism etc). Unless you have a strong objection, I propose to restore his tpa. Bishonen | talk 19:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I've been privy to his vitriol for many months now and had his page watchlisted because he seems exclusively interested in ad hominem attacks and drawing attention to how The System is keeping him down. I do believe he is seeing what he can get away with at this point, and we're simply providing him a platform for wasting people's time by allowing him tpa. However, I've always viewed you as a level-headed administrator and I won't object if you think this is the best course of action. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll try to keep an eye on it. Bishonen | talk 21:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC).

Garbage RfC

Spike Wilbury, Hi, I would appreciate input on a recent poll. --Lpdte77 (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix Page

I thought Jimi died from taking 12 sleeping pills and then drinking red wine? Your article says asphyxiation. I'm assuming you think he threw up in his sleep and choked to death. That was John Bonham. Thanks for your time. (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Hannah Moyers


Since Chunk admitted their mistake in getting 'hot-headed' and engaging in edit warring, and stated that they would stop and discuss instead - I've granted an unblock out of good faith. If Chunk starts up again, bring it right back to me and I'll step in. Dreadstar 03:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


Hi. Thanks for notifying an admin about the Chunk5Darth and his continued misbehavior. Unfortunately it didn't help, not only that but the admin blocked me because I reverted his removal of content 3 times in 24 hours. That is the worst bureaucratic rule on Wikipedia that is used by admins when they want to supposedly solve an issue but in one minute instead of dealing with an underlying cause. It goes something like this "I don't care if you are right or wrong you reverted three times in 24 hours so here is a block.". It doesn't matter if someone was adding a penis photo to the Queen Elizabeth II article, if you reverted him 3 times in 24 hours you are gone (and even if you tried all the measures in the book such as discussing it on the talk page the admin will only give you a boilerplate suggestion to do just that as he, as I've said, wants to "solve" the issue in one minute which doesn't allow him to get involved with any facts such as checking whether you've tried the talk page approach). It's so much worse with manipulative users like Chunk5Darth who don't simply troll by adding inappropriate content but they cite (completely random) Wikipedia policies and make it sound as if there was some merit to their actions.

Of course I am not angry that you reported his behavior, that's a normal response from a concerned editor, but I hope it helps you understand why the demise of Wikipedia that you can read about here or here is happening. People simply don't want to work in such an environment where they are treated like idiots for trying to help. I just wrote a comparison yesterday to that admin, in real life if he was a police officer, he would issue a ticket for making noise to a victim of family violence. And in fact, in real life, such ignorance does happen every single day. That is why later on beatings turn into murders, because certain police officers are too lazy to tackle the issues which is part of their job. The same goes here, many admins prefer to just drop an issue as solved by picking the simplest bureacratic measure.

To add to an insult that admin decided to unblock Chunk5Darth and leave me blocked (presumably because I didn't use any sweet talk but openly wrote to him what I think about such pathetic approach) which is completely ridiculous but then again not unexpected.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand your frustration here. Please don't conflate simple vandalism with content disputes. Obviously reverting vandalism is not considered edit warring and people don't get into trouble for it (or shouldn't). If it's any kind of subjective gray area, admins are going to paint it with a wide brush ("content dispute") and avoid taking sides precisely so they can deal with it neutrally in an administrative capacity. Our hands are somewhat tied in how we deal with edit wars. We can either lock the page (if many people are involved and/or belligerents haven't violated 3RR) or we can block editors. It's unusual for only one of the parties to be blocked, because it takes more than one person to have an edit war. Even if you're later proven to be "right" in your editorial position, your behavior is wrong the minute you decide to edit war. Pointing to anything the other editor is doing or not doing as a rationale for edit warring is really just a red herring. Please understand that I am not condoning Chunk5Darth's behavior; I think the project would be better off without his involvement. I'm just giving you my perspective as an admin. We are not mediators or conflict resolutions specialists; we just volunteered to clean up messes and attempt to stop obviously disruptive people. I fully agree that the bureaucracy is mind-numbing and for someone such as yourself who is just here to build content in your area of interest, these obstacles probably seem insurmountable. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply.
I agree with many things that you've said. Unfortunately the system doesn't work the way it should or the way it was intended. I know because in one dispute I've tried the following - using official Wikipedia warning templates against the other user (there are five levels of warnings which is in contradiction with 3RR which was where I violated the rule which I admitted when I realized it, but the admin was adamant that it was the paramount issue, not the vandalism that was taking place), opened a dispute resolution discussion on the talk page of the article in question (which was ignored by the other user obviously), added maintenance templates to attract attention of third users about the dispute (which were removed by the other user), repeatedly called the other user to join the discussion on the talk page without success and finally filed a motion at admin's noticeboard. So you could say I did everything by the book. Do you think any of it mattered or that an admin cared? Nope "content dispute" and "3RR" were invoked. It's not neutrality, it's picking the easiest and shortest way out. And it's ineffective. I know this how? Well you know it as well, your complaint said it all, the user Chunk5Darth is back to his old ways, he didn't change at all. So if our measures were effective how come he is back doing the same thing and getting away with it? It's time to admit our measures are very poorly designed.
And I've tried telling the acting admin that I would have by far preferred and wouldn't have complained if a normal decision about the actual merits of the case was made even if it said I was wrong. But it should be obvious to anyone that the constant sending off users in a dispute to talk it over where the whole dispute is actually about the fact that one of the users either refuses to talk about the issues or tries to manipulate the situation by lying or misquoting Wikipedia policies - can't work. It's not just on Wikipedia, it would be the same anywhere else, and the worst part is that this is how the situation escalates. But finding an admin that is actually willing to tackle the issue is very hard. Not impossible though, I've had sensible admins who didn't care about the 3RR, I had to revert some deceiving sneaky vandal a dozen times, but a sensible admin came in, locked the article and blocked the other user without looking into the 3RR.
Also may I return briefly to the issue of editors leaving Wikipedia. Trust me it doesn't feel good after you spend thousands of hours writing or improving hundreds of articles in your area of expertise and when you come across an issue to be met with brash bureaucracy. It is simply very non-motivating to continue working on Wikipedia when you know anyone can come in and destroy your work (especially if it is done in a cunning manner with an agenda which does seem to happen more often then simple vandalism where someone just blanks content or adds improper humor to articles) and there is very little that will be done about it and you will only be expected not to revert them more than three times in 24 hours. But hardly anyone will care to solve the problem and even if you follow all the official steps - tough luck, hardly anyone will care. In this case vanity even allowed for the user against whom a complaint was filed to be unblocked while I remained blocked simply for not being nice.
And this is not me trying to exonerate myself, fine I violated the 3RR and should be punished severely for it, but the main question is, was the problem solved? No, it wasn't, and that should be the only measure of effectiveness of admin measures taken.
Thank you for reading.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

As I suspected...

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jazzerino found that Rationalobserver was in fact a sock of Jazzerino, whom I had begrudged into sabotaging my FAC for xx (album), and previous FACs. Dan56 (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dan56: Gosh... well that was a strange turn of events. Do you plan to renominate it? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but I have another FAC currently nominated, so I'll wait till that one is over before I renominate xx; I can let you know if you're interested once I know when my current FAC is over. Dan56 (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
For some reason, though, the FAC bot that updated the talk page listed it as a good article. Dan56 (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Puppets FAC

Hey Spike, how's going? After Justice For All, I've got another Metallica album nominated for FA–Master of Puppets. The discussion is here, so any comments are welcomed.--Retrohead (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ooo nice! I will take a look. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Quick question

Hello! I am having a problem with a user on The Honeymoon Tour article. He seems to be making repetitive edits and changes things that don't need to be changed. I have warned him on his talk page and even tried to reach an agreement with him on the articles' talk page but he's ignored both and continues to make these edits. I know it's not necessarily vandalism but it is disruptive. I'm not sure where to go from here and I know you've helped me with a similar user before. Could you possibly lend a hand?  — TheMadonnaMusicCN (talk, contribs) 12:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I have left the user a note indicating that they must engage in discussion. Hopefully it is effective. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Unfortunately the user has completely ignored it and erased everything from his talk page.  — TheMadonnaMusicCN (talk, contribs) 17:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@Themadonnamusiccn: Well, users are allowed to blank their talk pages under most circumstances. It should be taken as acknowledgement that they have received the messages, and they can't claim not to have seen them. The question is, has the user adjusted their behavior at all? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
No the user hasn't. It all basically started with the user changing formats that didn't need to be changed. And when I reverted the edits back, the user claimed that "changing formats is useless" which was incredibly ironic because the user did it to begin with. The edits were continued and I reverted them and wrote to see the talk page or the articles' talk page to come to a consensus. However, the user blanked the talk page within a few hours again. So it seems the user does not wish to come to an agreement while I am trying to. But at this rate, I do not care anymore.  — TheMadonnaMusicCN (talk, contribs) 21:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

looking forward to getting that beer!

Export hell seidel steiner.png was nice meeting you. maybe next time we can plan earlier and get more people to show up. Jeremyb (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

? Rfid tags.

Can they be disabled remotely with targeted frequency transmissions to overload them? Curious and seeking data for a science project. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Not really my area of expertise, sorry. Maybe try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Topgrading REFUND

Apologies - for some reason I assumed, without checking, that you were not regularly active, otherwise I would have referred this REFUND request to you. The draft article is different enough from the 2010 version that I thought unsalting reasonable. JohnCD (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@JohnCD: Absolutely, it's leagues different. I have absolutely no problem with anyone undoing my admin actions under logical circumstances, especially after five years! --Spike Wilbury (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Loudness war


Most of the other albums listed on the Loudness war page do not have any actual evidence that the albums actually are compressed or contain clipping, but just link to a source based on some persons subjective views.

Take for example Ghost Infestissumam (which I also own). It links to this review: which contains this:

That's not to say that the whole thing is perfect. A few of the songs do drag on for too long and while I love the keyboard work here, I can definitely see why some people could be turned off by their increased prominence in each song, and unfortunately, this album does feature a master that comes dangerously close loudness war territory with some pretty audible distortion, especially during the intro of the aforementioned "Per Aspera Ad Inferi". Seeing as the album was produced by Nick Raskulinecz, who worked with Alice in Chains on "Black Gives Way To Blue", another album with completely smashed dynamics and clipping, this is definitely a possibility. Thankfully, the clipping here seems more of a consequence of a hotter recording rather than gratuitous compression and limiting, but it still should be noted as it adds some unwanted harshness to an otherwise smooth sounding production.

...and does thus not include any evidence at all, but only refers to a producer known to have created compressed albums previously...

In my addition, I actually linked to the evidence.

If the truth is important to Wikipedia, I think that most of the other albums should be removed from the list, since their references do NOT have any evidence of clipping or compression, but only subjective opinions... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endian05 (talkcontribs) 17:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm.. How would this forum page be classified as a source. It discusses the clipping on my mentioned album in Swedish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endian05 (talkcontribs) 18:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, gotcha...--Endian05 (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick note

Spike, being fucked can certainly be gender-neutral. I was getting thoroughly fucked in that thread, and there's a thread on Wikipediocracy where I'm getting fucked even more. (Off-site harassment is also harassment, of course.) Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were harassed. No one should need to endure harassment as a volunteer on this project. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, there's those that have it far worse than me: I don't, I think, experience sexual harassment. You may know that there's a delicious, fresh thread devoted to yours truly on WO (started by the person who came to my talk page so many months ago), and I have a website dedicated to me too, though I have to share that particular site with two others. It comes without outing of all of us, of course. Can't have it all. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Spike Wilbury: Thank you for welcoming me into this community! I made my first-ever Wikipedia edit on musician John Frusciante's page after he penned an 'open letter' last night regarding his new releases and the fact that he was misquoted in a recent interview. I made the edit last night and noticed it was quickly accepted. That made me happy because I apparently did it right, quoting, citing and referencing (his open letter). But because I'm not familiar with how this editing process works, I wanted to know if viewers (RHCP enthusiasts) visiting his page will be able to identify/contact me regarding the edits I made? Are you able to view this link? Any tips and advice are appreciated. thegustamante 15:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Thegustamantethegustamante 15:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC) PS. As in, do I have to include "thegustamante 15:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)" along with my signature (as I just did in this message) in my edit for folks to contact me (Thegustamante) as the source of the John Frusciante page edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegustamante (talkcontribs)

The Beatles Invite

AbbeyRoadZebraCrossingRevisited.jpg Hi! I've seen you around on The Beatles' articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject The Beatles, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of The Beatles on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us.
Abbey Road... You're not in this picture... yet!

Nine Inch Nails Revert

Please do not revert the addition of Filter to the Nine Inch Nails associated acts section. Filter has TWO members in common with NIN, that being Richard Patrick and Brian Liesegang. Both were members of Nine Inch Nails. Feel free to confirm this for yourself.

Thank you.

Formatting of RFA

Yes, I think it's worth just hitting the restart button and trying again. I didn't want to touch the page, of course. GABHello! 00:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I took care of it, and left a note for Jonas here. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Poor close at ANI


Your close here might have been better thought out if you'd at least read the first few paras. This was very far from a content dispute. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I read the whole thing. I assure you that the perspective is quite different from the outside, which is why only uninvolved parties close (or should re-open) threads. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

With regards to your previous ANI close mentioned, above, you are now mentioned in a new ANI thread, by same filer, here.


Cirt (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Spike Wilbury. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Rage Against The Machine genre #2

In such case, please cite me sources that say that Rage Against The Machine are a nu-metal band. Because the fact that one or two articles on the internet wrongly label them nu-metal does not make them a nu-metal band.

You will never find a credible rock or metal source that credits them as a nu-metal band.

- The first source is a link to, a news website, which does not even specialize in music, which wrongly labels them a nu-metal act. (117)

- The second of the so called sources is nothing but a link to a Slipknot book. (118)

- The third one is a link to a pdf file of a book in which see nohing about RATM, as the number of pages shown is limited. (119)

- And the fourt "source" is yet another news website (The Guardian), again with zero credibility when it comes to music - especially when it comes to rock or metal. (120)

I don't know if you personally listen to this type of music or not, but Rage Against The Machine is definitely not a nu-metal band. It gave birth to nu-metal, along with other rap rock and rap metal acts, but, like them, it isn't nu-metal. It has nothing to do with nu-metal - musically, lyrically, visually or otherwise. It wasn't a part of some fad.

I could go on and on about how it isn't a nu-metal act and give you the facts, try to explain you the differences between rap rock/metal and nu-metal, and so on, but I see no point in doing so - it's all been writen on the internet. Please read an article on nu-metal and what it really is. Then read about rap rock and rap metal. Understand what makes rap rock/metal, rap rock/metal, and what makes nu-metal, nu-metal. Do some research for yourself in order to understand the differences, instead on relying on medias such as The Guardian.

Referring to RATM as nu-metal is the same as referring to The Beatles as metal, the same as referring to Black Sabbath as thrash metal, the same as referring to Megadeth death metal, and so on. It's the same as referring to David Bowie as glam metal. It's wrong. I'm not even sure if there are that many debates by PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY LISTEN TO THIS KIND OF MUSIC on the internet whether RATM is nu-metal or not, because it clearly isn't. It PREDATES nu-metal!!!

Lastly, Wikipedia has always been somewhat infamous when it comes to actual facts. Pretty much anyone could write anything and cite the least-credible site possible as evidence. Please educate yourself when it comes to genres within rock/metal and fix the genre of RATM.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Rage Against The Machine genre

Excuse me, but earlier rap metal/rock acts such as Rage Against The Machine are not nu-metal. That genre didn't even exist until the mid-nineties. Bands such as Rage Against The Machine, Faith No More, The Beastie Boys, et cetera are considered to be among the main infuelnces of nu-metal, but that does not make them nu-metallers themselves.

Much like thrash metal bands like Slayer aren't death metal, even though they're among the main infuelnces of death metal, and much like bands such as Led Zeppelin and AC/DC aren't metal, even though they have a big influence on the genre itself.

There is absolutely nothing NU-METAL about Rage Against The Machine. It's rap rock, it's rap metal, it's alternative, but it isn't nu-metal.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. There are also numerous musical differences between RAP METAL and RAP ROCK, and NU-METAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

As I said, your opinion on genres is not taken into account. We go on what sources say, and we cite several sources in the article for the genres in the infobox. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Info box on Chicago (band) for Walt Parazaider.

Spike Wilbury: I saw your message to about needing citations to move Walt Parazaider from "Members" to "Past Members" in the Info Box. Would it be appropriate to include information after Walt Parazaider's name in the Info Box like this: |Walt Parazaider (No longer touring.[1][2][3]|?Curious405 (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Curious405: I think it is a matter of what looks/works best, and I wouldn't have a problem with that if you think it's worth noting that he's no longer touring. A similar example I can think of is Toto. They always had official "members" listed in their web site but then there were always a number of "touring members". When Mike Porcaro retired from touring due to health issues, he was still listed as a member in the infobox but in the article body we put something in parens like (inactive due to illness). See this version of the page before Mike's death. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, made that change in the Lineup section on the Chicago (band) page. I do think it's worth noting, because members of the band have often said, "We're a touring band." Curious405 (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


AF Mark 3.jpg
Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG

Hoping you enjoyed the recently-held in-person Art+Feminism meetup,
we cordially invite you continue your participation by joining the
virtual worldwide online event
hosted by Women in Red.
March 2016 (Women's History Month)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Pokémon Online listed at Redirects for discussion


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pokémon Online. Since you had some involvement with the Pokémon Online redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Wesco 482 block

I believe a more explicit explanation of this block would be helpful to reviewing admins, such as whether the block was related to all the non-free content notices on his page, or unsourced edits, combination of the two, or whatever. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, somebody came along and provided a link to the ANI discussion. As there was no link to it in either the log or the block notice it was a bit obscure, but I have now declined their request. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: Sorry about that. I had typed out an addendum on my office laptop to the block template providing more explanation, but seeing that the edit never appeared I'm guessing it's still sitting there waiting for me to click Save. Thanks for handling the unblock request. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
    • ^ Cite error: The named reference Sculley July2017 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    • ^ Cite error: The named reference Durchholz was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    • ^ Cite error: The named reference Price NJHerald 2017 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).