User:Spylab/User talk:Spylab/archive3

Oak Lake, Manitoba
Thank you for clarifying and streamlining the sections of the articles. I wrote the page in one sitting and didn't really have the energy to proof-edit. As a side note, I'm curious what you believe needs citations on the Oak Lake, Manitoba page. I'm from the town and I can try to find any necessary sources. Delox 05:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

White people
I wonder why the "see also" section contains articles like Nordic theory, White nationalism, White power, White pride, White separatism and White supremacy? As far as I can see these articles represent tiny minority sections of the White population, and are in no way relevant to the subject of White people. You removed links to Nazism (just a sort of "White supremacy" surely?) and the Holocaust, one of the main historical events of the last 100 years and definitely relevant to White people. If we include tiny minority, unrepresentative and irrelevant beliefs and groups (none of the above are in any way related to White people), why omit the sort of atrocities these people have commited? I am just curious about your motivation for this. Personally I would like to remove all reference to these nazi groups, I find it strange that these articles are listed in the "see also" section, as if they have any relevance to the point of view or perspective of any White people other than a tiny distorted group of nazis. Alun 18:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I undid some of your work. I did think that some of what you removed should have remained, especially the footnotes regarding explanation of Y chromosome haplogroups, but it's a question of judgement I suppose. Anyway I don't want an edit war or anything. Again I appologise, there are good reasons to rationalise and copy edit articles, and if you felt that parts of the article were overly detailed then that's fair enough. Happy new year. Alun 10:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark Lemire
I had to stub the article again. I hope you can help with it.--Jimbo Wales 02:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

About white/caucasian in medical articles
Hi spylab,

I have seen that you prefer to use the word "white people" instead of caucasian or caucasoid. As far as I know they are not equivalent. Caucasoid is applied to any indo-european related people, like indo-iranians, and people with similar morphology, like arabians. White europeans or white americans are only part of this group.

I suppose that white people sounds better and is better for colloquial language, but caucasian (or even better, caucasoid) is more precise in medical articles.

User:Juansempere —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juansempere (talk • contribs) 02:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I have never replaced the term Caucasoid, but I have replaced the disambiguation page (and inaccurate, out of date and USA-centric term) Caucasian. The term Caucasian is only precise when referring to Caucasian peoples, who are from the Caucasus region. It is not a catch-all term for all white people. Spylab 03:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-punk and sXe
Hi, would you mind taking a look at the section titled "Input needed at Anarcho-punk and Straight edge" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Punk music. Thanks.  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 02:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oi
The text I deleted was

"Oi!" is a famous word used at OMMS created by Jacob Mallinson and Hunter Williamson. You can use this word to create new words!

''Examples: Captain Oister Oi Squad The Oi Arrow

oi          oioioioioioi oioioioioioioi oioioioioioi oi

Unfortunately I missed that this was vandalism and not the original text, so I've restored. If you are going to judge people by the comments on their talk page, rather than reading the responses too, I suggest you read above. jimfbleak 13:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, I should have checked the history, but with a title like Oi! it didn't occur to me that there might be a proper article. My second sentence above was uncalled for too. jimfbleak 15:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Reggae
Please respond on the talk page before reverting. I dont mind changing the opening but am strongly opposed to the bald statement we ahd, very unwikipedia-like. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You also failed to recorrect the mistake I had corrected in your revert. Please take more care in future as introducing mistakes into wikipedia or reintroducing them may be considered vandalism. I refer to "However, reggae songs lyrics also deal with many other subjects, including love, sexuality and broad social" which is a sentence without an ending that I repaired and you re-broke, SqueakBox 22:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice that there were changes other than making the opening sentence overly-long. Your latest version is fine. Spylab 22:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

National/Nationalist Anarchism
Hello. Here's part of something I've just posted on the National anarchism talk page. I would welcome a response.

"'...right now it looks like the article has been vandalised and the Black Ram/anarcho-swastika material removed, apparently by somebody sympathetic to Southgate's NAs who says there is no evidence for Black Ram having existed and that my inclusion of the material is an 'obvious attempt to discredit the real NA founders'. Strange that, as I have a copy in front of my nose and I am considering how to deposit other copies where they can be accessed by researchers. Black Ram was advertised in an issue of Pipes of PAN, the journal of Pagans Against Nukes, early in '83 - I'm going to see if I can dig out the exact reference. That's a fairly mainstream neo-pagan paper so it shouldn't be all that difficult to check. I am considering what response might be appropriate, given that the vandalism is complicated by Spylab having made further edits to the vandalised version, I think in good faith. Up until this point I was prepared to give Southgate's movement the benefit of the doubt but even if this article is partly or even largely about them, it isn't their personal property. I take a dim view of removing stuff for which I had provided primary sources, and I give notice that I WILL be reincluding the Black Ram material, one way or another, in the interest of historical objectivity.'"

Given that you've made what looks like quite a substantial edit, I wonder if you'd agree to a complete revert, or if we can agree on some other coordinated fix?

By the way, I'd support a merger of the two articles, partly because the Black Ram material links (linked) them together, but it occurs to me that if this material is going to be subject to repeated removal by Southgate's supporters in a context where it's in the same article with stuff relating to them, maybe they should remain separate articles with the Black Ram stuff going entirely into Nationalist anarchism - or is that copping out?

Oh, and what exactly did you mean when you said my Nationalist anarchism footnote was not a proper footnote? :) Gnostrat 01:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What's is the problem???
I've noticed that you are editing someone's contribution by altering the text under pretext of grammar corrections - not reading references at all. Moreover, not reading the references nor providing your own - you are demanding new references.

Also, on January 12th you've made 65 edits on various articles in the span of more than 11 hours (merge, clean, copy, revert, etc). Don't you think that it might be seen as something wrong with you if you are spending day after day, hours and hours - practically not contributing anything serious to Wikipedia, only irritating many people this way???


 * 22:35, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Racism (→See also - deleted incorrect link) (top)
 * 22:33, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Racism (deleted extra space)
 * 22:32, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Racism (→India - section stub)
 * 22:31, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Racism (→United Kingdom - section stub message)
 * 22:31, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Racism (→South Africa - section stub message)
 * 22:30, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Racism (→Scientific racism - captions aren't supposed to be long explanations - if it's important it should be in main text section)
 * 22:21, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Cochabamba (→People and Culture - fixed links & other copy editing) (top)
 * 22:15, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Thomas A. Edison High School (New York City) (→Demographics - disambiguated link & copy edited section) (top)
 * 22:11, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Pharmacogenetics (unreferenced tag because there are no specific references or footnotes) (top)
 * 22:10, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Pharmacogenetics (→Pharmacogenetics and adverse drug reactions - citation request - is it really Caucasian race or Caucasoid ? - Caucasian is a disambiguation page)
 * 22:05, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Rudolf-Harbig-Stadion (unreferenced tag) (top)
 * 22:02, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Spylab (→Reggae)
 * 22:00, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Reggae (→Opening)
 * 21:54, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Reggae (partial revert because opening sentences aren't supposed to be that long & Rasta is not the most important thing about reggae)
 * 21:49, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Reggae (revert - opening sentences are supposed to be short and simple (+separated long paragraph))
 * 21:44, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:The Blood (→not very professional) (top)
 * 21:43, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m The Blood (Seinfeld episode) (added see also message for article with similar title) (top)
 * 21:40, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Mod revival (→Notable mod revival bands - unreferenced tag because most of the bands aren't verified) (top)
 * 21:36, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Nationalist anarchism (corrected footnote that wasn't a real footnote & added spaces where appropriate)
 * 21:32, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Nationalist anarchism (merge tag)
 * 21:31, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) National anarchism (merge tag)
 * 21:30, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) National anarchism (cleaned up formatting & copy edited)
 * 21:08, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Buster Bloodvessel (copy edited, including deleting point of view & re-ordering based on topics) (top)
 * 20:53, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Mod (lifestyle) (reverted - online radio isn't considered a proper resource on Wikipedia) (top)
 * 20:51, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Nazi-Skinhead (reverted vandalism & fixed capitalization) (top)
 * 18:05, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Racism (→Definitions of racism - copy edited first part of section & corrected footnote formatting)
 * 17:58, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Racism (references go at end of sentences & tightened up writing)
 * 17:45, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Racism (corrected logic and syntax in opening sentence)
 * 17:41, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Civil Rights Act of 1866 (corrected formatting of unreferenced tag) (top)
 * 17:40, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Civil Rights Act of 1866 (corrected link in infobox)
 * 17:38, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Civil Rights Act of 1866 (unreferenced tag because there is only one footnote)
 * 17:37, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Civil Rights Act of 1866 (copy edited, including separating ling paragraphs and unlinking words that went to external sites instead of Wikipedia articles)
 * 17:14, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Civil Rights Act of 1866 (deleted content in infobox that isn't about the topic of the section (Related legislation))
 * 17:11, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Civil Rights Act of 1866 (corrected formatting of intro)
 * 16:51, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Civil Rights Act of 1866 (corrected links)
 * 16:43, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m White American (reverted vandalism) (top)
 * 16:42, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Anti-Fascist Action (moved unreferenced tag to top of article because there are very few references)
 * 16:41, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Anti-Fascist Action (→AFA in other countries - changed refs into footnotes)
 * 16:39, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Anti-Fascist Action (→British AFA - changed references into footnotes)
 * 16:33, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Anti-Fascist Action (added footnotes section (will change references into footnotes))
 * 16:32, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Anti-Fascist Action (→AFA in other countries - unreferenced tag because most of the info has no references (and the Greece reference isn't in English))
 * 16:19, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Breaking Up Is Hard to Do (TV episode) (→Notes - copy edited) (top)
 * 14:34, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Punk rock (→Characteristics - copy edited the rest of the section)
 * 14:10, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Punk rock (→Characteristics - moved footnotes to end of sentence, separated long paragraphs & other minor formatting corrections)
 * 13:45, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Punk rock (→USA USA USA - answer to question)
 * 13:30, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Utlonghorns10 (vandalism warning) (top)
 * 13:17, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Oxymoron (band) (cleanup tag) (top)
 * 13:12, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Talk:The Blood (→not very professional - forgot to sign my own comment)
 * 13:11, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Punk rock (deleted vanity posting based on uncited point of view)
 * 13:08, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jimfbleak (→Unjustified deletion of Oi! article)
 * 12:54, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 12 (→Oi! - added statement that there are many articles that link to Oi!)
 * 12:53, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Oi! (deleted for no reason - see links to get article restored)
 * 12:48, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 12 (→Oi! - added more info)
 * 12:43, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jimfbleak (Restore Oi! article that was unjustifiably deleted)
 * 12:40, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 12 (Undelete Oi! article because it was deleted for no reason (& corrected formatting mistake))
 * 12:29, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Oi! (Article was deleted for no legitimate reason)
 * 12:26, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:The Blood (→not very professional)
 * 12:24, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) B5 (band) (merged info from Trivia section into main section & copy edited)
 * 12:09, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) B5 (band) (created Lineup section for better organization)
 * 11:58, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Soul music (→External links - added relevant links)
 * 11:57, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Soul music (→Sound samples - deleted sample that links to outside link instead of Wikipedia media file)
 * 11:56, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Soul music (→Notable soul artists - deleted name with no Wikipedia article, deleted artist who is hip hop, not soul & fixed 2 links)
 * 11:51, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m List of psychobilly bands (deleted band with no article and added space after hidden editor's message so it will be more noticeable) (top)
 * 11:46, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Rhythm and blues (→History - copy edited, including deleting distracting trivia (which can be found by clicking on blue links anyway)) (top)
 * 11:11, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Rhythm and blues (→Contemporary R&B - copy edited first section)
 * 10:58, 12 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Rhythm and blues (→Original rhythm and blues - moved rock & roll info lower in section because it came later in history)

--Giorgio Orsini 14:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Spylab 14:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Multiracial people
Spylab, it's simple: there are people included as multiracial b/c they're half British and half Cuban. Nothing is stated about the actual racial lineage of the person, only the parents' nationalities. How does that make the person multiracial necessarily? The parents could both be white, easily! Most Britons and millions of Cubans (formerly the majority) are white. (That's only the most likely scenario, but other monoracial combinations are possible, such as Black Cuban and Black Briton.) Obviously there are many such entries that use only demonyms or country names, instead of races, but as I explain right in the footnote text itself, this is especially incorrect in the case of countries such as those of Latin America, which have long been so racially diverse. Would you rather those entries be removed entirely, or see a footnote next to them? SamEV 21:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Footnotes are for references (books, aticles, websites), or short explanatory notes, not paragraphs. See Footnotes Spylab 23:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Spylab, I quote from the guideline:


 * "Footnotes are sometimes useful for relevant text that would distract from the main point if embedded in the main text, yet are helpful in explaining a point in greater detail."
 * Greater "detail", it reads. It says nothing about keeping it shorter than a paragraph, as you claim. (How suitably can someone comment if they're limited to one sentence?) It continues:


 * "Footnotes are also often used to cite references which are relevant to a text. Citation of sources is important in supporting Verifiability, a key aspect of Wikipedia."
 * "Footnotes are also often used to cite references..." (my emphasis). IOW, it is not their exclusive use.
 * I'm open to suggestions that you may have, but my footnotes are compatible with Wikipedia's guidelines. SamEV 02:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Black people
I agree with your edit (removing dictionary definitions.) We'll see if it sticks. Thanks for helping out! --futurebird 22:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro Change
Please don't change it again untill we hash it out on the talk page. The wording is bad, but your change is too dry. --futurebird 22:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Those "race experts"
Great work on Black people page today. You're rocking my world! futurebird 22:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply
They're different scenes, with different musical characteristics.

Glam Metal and Brutal Death metal are both forms of heavy metal, but you wont find them sharing a list describing "first waves" together.

Hardcore is not punk, its hardcore. Bad Brains aren't the same as the Buzzcocks. - Deathrocker 21:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really, certainly not in the UK they weren't seen as one and the same. The Exploited weren't viewed as part of the same thing as the original UK bands either, they were more associated with UK Hardcore. The Pistols, the Damned and the Clash played with each other.. they had influences and elements in common and were viewed as part of the same "scene" when it was happening.


 * As for the actual fans and people who made up the "scenes", the original punk rock scene moved into new romantic, gothic rock, new wave, post-punk... this is historically documented with clubs such as the Blitz and the Batcave. They didn't move onto hardcore.


 * There were also very few connections between the original US movement and hardcore also. The States are generally more musically ignorant, however and the 70s Max's Kansas City bands were not as widely spread as punk was in the UK. It was in one small area... the only physical connection between the scenes musically is The Misfits (who relocated), and the fact that some hardcore would later play CBGB's to keep it open. (but so have numerous different styled bands after the 70s) - Deathrocker 21:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not denying that it is a subgenre; because it is. Its just not one and the same as punk rock, as I have shown above. The so called "spikey haired" leather jacket kids (which is also debatable) you are talking about allegedly across America, were not in the original punk bands or even part of the NY scene of the 70s (who moved into art punk and standard rock eras), there is no evidence to show it... Richard Hell & co didn't shave their heads and start playing hardcore all of a sudden.

As I said, the only real connection between the original US punk movement in NY and the Hardcore one of the 80s is the Misfits, and they stood out as a sore thumb in both (hense why they are now refered to as "horror punk"). - 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for you opinion: Image:Sketch-4race-transparent2.png
I noticed you had some well thought out arguments about, do you think you could weigh in on over this image? --futurebird 23:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Note
I've noticed that you are obsessed by the idea of replacing the word "Caucasian" by the word "white" - wherever you have seen it - even when not reading or understanding the articles where the word "Caucasian" gets used.

If you do not know exact meaning of some word - the very good thing, that might help you, is - a good dictionary of the contemporary English language. Therefore, as per, Caucasian is an • adjective 1 relating to a broad division of humankind covering peoples from Europe, western Asia, and parts of India and North Africa. 2 white-skinned; of European origin. 3 relating to the region of the Caucasus in SE Europe.

• or noun a Caucasian person.

Or, per, Caucasian is again an adjective 1 : of or relating to the Caucasus or its inhabitants 2 : of, constituting, or characteristic of a race of humankind native to Europe, North Africa, and southwest Asia and classified according to physical features -- used especially in      referring to persons of European descent having usually light skin pigmentation

If you have some irresistible need for just changing words in a text - please, use a plain text editor and your own sandbox. That way you will not make further damage to the Wikipedia articles nor your entertaintment will ever irritate anyone whose idea and efforts are to pass some valuable information to the Wikipedia readers.--BarryMar 02:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not damaged any articles, and I would appreciate if you didn't make false accusations such as that. I assure you that I do read what the article is about and make the appropriate changes based on factual accuracy and worldwide usage of terms. Also, it is pointless to link to disambiguation pages such as Caucasian. Also, dictionaries are not always reliable sources, especially since the definitions are written by anonymous individuals and groups. Spylab 10:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Stop hand.svg|30px]] Could you, please, stop with making changes of the text you obviously do not understand? As I said above, if you have some irresistible need for just changing words in a text - use a plain text editor and your own sandbox. There is a few of us, ready to file a collective request to the Wikipedia administration in order to close your account. As to the practical values of the contemporary English language dictionaries - as the Merriam Webster or the Oxford Dictionary - please, be advised to ask somebody to help you in understanding what are these books written for and how to practically use them.--BarryMar 02:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do, in fact, know what I'm talking about, as I explained on various talk pages. My edits are based on sound facts and reliable sources. Please stop your personal attacks based on ignorance and flimsy logic. Spylab 11:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. In order to close my account, you would have to demonstrate that I have broken Wikipedia rules. I have not breached any guidelines, so your threats are hollow. Spylab 11:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To BarryMar. This poor soul of Spylab has always a rule that makes him/her (in his/her mind) absolutely right - no matter is (s)he knowledgeable about the subject (s)he tries to elaborate or not. Also, (s)he has the rule which his/her opponent breaks regularly - "Please stop your personal attacks ...". Sure thing, Wikipedia is a free source of knowledge - which must be freed of mentally challenged people (and their 'contributions') like Spylab - in order to be credible and respectable source. --NovaNova 02:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, Spylab! I've never got this sort of reaction. I can only conclude that you're a better editor than I am! Keep up the good work. CWC (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand that people don't like to hear that their language use, grammar or factual claims are incorrect or not backed up by reliable sources. However, they should not take it personally when someone corrects their mistakes. I have no problem admitting when I've made a mistake, and don't take it as a blow to the ego when someone fixes my errors. Spylab 11:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Random comment
You know, those lyrics are not "random" in the least. They are chosen to illustrate the article, like the citation of "Stir it up" in the Rhythm guitar section. What is the point of such inflammatory edits, which only insult your fellow editors? And why do you insist in removing illustrative material from the reggae article?! Haiduc 18:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have insulted nobody by my edits to the Reggae article. Pasting partial lyrics of two songs in no way represents the wide range of topics in reggae songs. Other articles about music genres don't have similar arbitrary examples of song lyrics, for good reason. Showcasing the lyrics of two songs, out of the thousands of reggae songs that exist, gives an incomplete and distorted picture and is not encyclopedic. I could just as easily paste some lyrics of reggae songs about love or sex, and say they are representative of reggae lyrics. It would hold just as much weight.Spylab 20:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nardwuar the Human serviette
I see we're having an unintentional conflict at that article, and I have no issue with your reorganization of it. My concern is that you're attending to a version that has ahd erroneous information inserted into it by a chronic IP vandal whose editing patterns match that of User:Arthur Ellis. Better IMHO to apply your fixes to the revision of Feb 4 (before Ellis's recent drive-by vandalism) than to try to fix a more broken version. Ianking 17:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh. That particular vandal will eventually be reported to admin, but he'll just come back under another IP. Agree some cites are necessary, as some of the bits (like the origin of his name) conflict with other accounts (including one in a cite I've just inserted). Many of the interviews mentioned in the article are included in various Nardwuar-related albums and singles; some of his better-known incidents have made the mainstream press. (I'll also admit that I've known Nardwuar for many years, back in the days when he was CiTR radio's volunteer coordintor and I was a volunteer in the station's news and sports department.) Ianking 17:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)