User talk:Simeoneuk

Welcome...

Hello, Simeoneuk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help How to write a great article Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there.

Testing Wikipedia
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Marskell (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Shinjuku Thief, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Shinjuku Thief was changed by Simeoneuk (u) (t) blanking the page on 2008-02-23T18:06:03+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

September 2009
Howdy. I wrote the following message on another user's page, whom I assume you to be connected to, since you and (s)he both instated the same edits in the Men at Work article. To repeat, I'm open to talking about a radical revision of the info in the Men at Work article, but we need to discuss it on the discussion page first, as it seems that, while potentially valid, the perspective might be potentially biased. Here is my last note - let's discuss!


 * ==Men at Work edits==

Hi there! I wanted to let you know that I went ahead and reverted two recent edits you made to the Men at Work article. I don't want to devalue your input, but it seemed that the changes you made reflected something of a bias (i.e., the belief that the band's history exclusively relates to its "classic" lineup) that doesn't seem factually aligned with the sourced references within the article, or with my own understanding of the events surrounding the band. I realize that the subject is debatable and open to interpretation, as all of the band's most noteworthy acts revolve around the "classic" lineup, and thus their additional history has been comparatively under-documented in the press and presently stands as somewhat opaque. Furthermore, it is unclear as to whether the group's peripheral members are to be taken as proper band members or not, and what exactly we are to make of their recent activity. All of this is to say that I am open to discussing your apparent interpretation of the band's history as more factually accurate than the version I am currently presenting within, but I think that we should take a discussion of the subject onto the article's discussion section prior to instating it in the article itself. The fact that you seem to have an specific opinion on the band's activity that you are pushing (e.g., such additions as the line you added referring to Strykert's departure as being due to his "assuming [Two Hears] would flop and it did.") So if you want to talk about how the info should be presented, let's talk about it on the article's discussion page. Thanks for helping with the article on this great band! Colinclarksmith (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

False information
Ron Strykert does not state this on his website; the he has claimed to at least be open to reuniting with the group,[9] stating as such on the "News" section of his website.


 * Yeah, I thought that was a strange line myself. Okay, I'll go ahead and remove that!  As for any other issues surrounding the article, feel free to voice any specific concerns and we can get to work on fixing the article up.  Colinclarksmith (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)