User talk:Spylab

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


Disambiguation link notification for May 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reggae genres, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Selector (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Punk subculture may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletionist behaviour[edit]

Reverting a contribution because "not referenced" while it is? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rude_boy#Single_by_Desmond_Dekker If you have doubts please debate them on the Talk page of the article before obstructing the work of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaromil (talkcontribs) 11:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The sentence did not have a reference, so it can be deleted at any time, by anyone, as per Wikipedia policies.Spylab (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mod (subculture) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • mods adopted a smooth, sophisticated look that included tailor-made suits with narrow lapels (sometimes made of [[mohair]], thin ties, button-down collar shirts, wool or cashmere jumpers (

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hardcore punk[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that the longstanding content about hardcore clothing (crew cuts, sneakers, etc) has been deleted from the hardcore punk article. The same editor also deleted a section on hardcore zines(MRR, Cometbus, etc). I have raised these two issues on the talk page. Also, musical characteristics has been relocated to later in the article. Just thought I'd let you know. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Left-wing terrorism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *[Right-wing terrorism]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Dead links[edit]

Please do not remove them. Please either research them, or, if you do not have the time, flag them with {{Dead link}} and give someone else the cue to research them. Often they can be found via Archive.org. Removing them leaves no clue to their prior presence in the current version, so removing them is harmful to the project. Usually a valid link can be tracked down, but we need the cues to know that that task is required. Fiddle Faddle 08:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Inclusive Democracy[edit]

Please use the talk page at Inclusive Democracy before you make any sweeping edits, or alternatively do edits one at a time, so that each edit can be commented upon. What you did is not normal copy-editing, but re-writing the entire entry without providing valid reasons. User:John sargis 16:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

False. I copy edited the article as normal and improved the organization. I did not rewrite the article or change the substance at all.Spylab (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Since there have been sweeping changes in Inclusive Democracy entry, you would rather explain the need for them, or do them one at a time. Even if it was a complete restructuring of the entry, the scope and extension of the edits that you did show that you may should have started a dialogue in the Talk Page of the entry at the first place, and not do it all at once sweepingly. Also please do not use the word "Vandalism" for somebody's reaction to your edits arbitratily. I would advise you to use the Editing policy and Be helpful, Explain & Major changes guideline for making big changes in an entry, even if they are for "restructuring" purposes. Thanks. 77.49.224.227 (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed there is evidence you altered and deleted some of the sentences - this was stressed by User:John sargis in Inclusive Democracy's talk page - of the entry, so, it was not just a matter of restructuring, deletion, addition of spaces etc. as you claimed. This is another reason you should have used a step-by-step approach with comments for each one, if you really wanted to improve the entry and not distort it in effect. 77.49.224.227 (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Reinvoked my arbitratily deleted by User:Spylab comments, for which initially I had not signed in properly with my user name earlier. Panlis (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Until now, the last time you posted anything on Wikipedia from the Panlis account was May 28, 2013. Interesting.Spylab (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with this. On the other hand I could be much more sarcastic about your general attributes in Wikipedia like your own "interest" and motive of improving Wikipedia as you declare them in your user page: "I Spy" ! But I try to focus on someone's deeds and activity and not be sarcastic. Panlis (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Suddenly coming out of an seven-month hibernation just to post criticisms on another editor's talk page is a deed and activity. I didn't say there was something "wrong" with it, just that it was interesting.Spylab (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

POV Section on Capitalism[edit]

Hi, I was just passing by and observed your edit on Capitalism. Wondering why you believed that using Australia as an example is a POV when it is a factual comment, and could it have been the authors intent for other users to add examples of other countries? (58.161.220.210 (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC))

The section was full of opinions and spin, not neutral facts, thus it was POV. It was also undue weight to focus on one country.Spylab (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fascism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Internationalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


Please stop deleting and reverting the restoration of comments on Right Wing Politics[edit]

Spybot. Several times now you have deleted and reverted comments from several editors on the TALK page for Right Wing Politics. This is beginning to appear like edit warring and trying to control the content of discussion that is taking place there. Instead of deleting the points people are making, please make your own points if you feel you have something to contribute to the discussion. It is ironic that the comments you are deleting themselves reference the dearth of opinion and balance in this article. Please assume good faith in other editors. This is a discussion page, not the article itself. I am assuming you do not intend this as vandalism hence my friendly note here hoping you will cease deleting comments you disagree with and allow the discussion to continue. 216.178.108.235 (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles. They are not forums to discuss the topic in general. They are not pulpits to rant from, and they are not spaces to post anonymous personal attacks against other editors. Comments that violate Wikipedia policies can be deleted at any time. The comments I deleted were not made in good faith. You are correct that my deletions were not vandalism.Spylab (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I will allow your deletions to stand, not because I don't believe you are attempting to control and censor the discussion there, but because your insistence on deleting this material proves my point that the article suffers from a lack of viewpoints and a one sided control of the presentation of the topic which is grossly POV. Your actions prove the point more than the deleted statements did. No doubt you will sanitize this as well... 216.178.108.235 (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Right wing politics articles[edit]

I have noticed an increase in new editors changing 'far right' to 'far left' in various articles relating to Nazim and am beginning to think it isn't coincidence. I'll take the 2 new accounts at [{Far-right politics]] to SPI. Please ping me if you reply. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hardcore punk[edit]

Hi Spylab, I just wanted to let you know that the Hardcore punk article is currently going through an IP user edit war, with repeated, unsubstantiated claims that there is a consensus that metal is one of the stylistic origins of HC. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hategroup[edit]

IP is perhaps Jonesboro, changes to British English (mentioned by Jonesboro in an edit summary). Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

See also Traditional Values Coalition. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Leads[edit]

Hi, Leads are supposed to be a standalone introduction to the article, and in some cases the leads are too short and miss key content. I am trying to improve the leads with my efforts.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

In some cases, there will be a simply-worded sentence from the body of the text that summarizes a section, and I think that it makes sense to re-use this sentence from the body in the lede. I looked in the MOS:LEAD, and I didn't find an explicit prohibition of re-using text from the body. There are, however, statements that the lead should summarize the body's text and that editors should not add too much detail. In the case of the soul article, I don't think that listing the key subgenres (e.g., Motown) and saying a few words about each subgenre is too much detail. I am not trying to be difficult. I am just trying to improve the articles. I have re-attempted to add to the leads of some of the articles you reverted. In ska, I think it is a pertinent piece of info to tell the reader that 2 Tone mixes ska with punk, or that the third wave took place in a number of countries (the article body lists the UK, Germany, Australia, Japan and the US). I am happy to discuss this with you, and try to negotiate a middle ground between the two extremes of having leads be very vague and the other extreme of having too many details. I believe that pop punk's lead was too generic; it didn't name even the most prominent bands that are discussed in the article (e.g., Green Day and Blink-182)OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Your addition of "alleged" in the Liberal Fascism article[edit]

I reverted your addition of "alleged" in Liberal Fascism. It is a problem because, to quote WP:ALLEGED, "words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate". Using alleged without citing a source is editorializing on your part and an introduction of bias into the article. The sentence was "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning is a book by Jonah Goldberg on the origins and nature of fascist movements." This is an accurate sentence on its own. Adding "alleged" before origins does nothing but imply inaccuracy, so it introduces a bias. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The extremely biased book Liberal Fascism is full of editorlizing on the part of the author. Goldberg makes opinionated claims about the so-called origins and nature of fascist movements that are not based in reality. The premise of the book is innaccurate, so pointing out that fact is neutral, not biased.Spylab (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I've read the book, and I don't think we are going to agree on its accuracy, but as editors here we ought to be able to agree on neutral wording for the article. For example, I have no problem with your most recent edit and I won't be changing it. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Invitation[edit]

Musical note nicu bucule 01.svg