User talk:Spylab

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives User:Spylab/User talk:Spylab/archive1 User:Spylab/User talk:Spylab/archive2 User:Spylab/User talk:Spylab/archive3

Contents 1 Ska 2 Use of "unreferenced" tag 3 How to request a block 4 Black people 5 Redundancy 6 White People 7 Counter-Racism Science 8 Red Links 9 Deletion of information 10 Block 11 Spelling 12 Red links 13 Twisted Wheel

[edit] Ska

• I hereby award this barnstar to Spylab for outstanding contributions to the ska music article. You have pushed this article in a direction that has long been needed. Little tinyfish 00:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "unreferenced" tag

I've removed the unreferenced tag from the top of the Civic virtue article. Please do not put it back there without further discussion.

The tag is to be at the top of an article only when an article has no references. That, as you say, having only 4 footnotes for the entire article is insufficient, is true, but the purpose of the tag at the top of an article is not to identify articles with insufficient footnotes; it's to identify articles with no footnotes.

I believe that the tag can be used within individual sections as well as at the top of the article. You might consider doing that instead. If you do, I suggest picking just two or three sections that are most lacking in references, rather than tagging every single section that qualifies. (See Template:Unreferenced for further information.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to request a block

I noticed your post to User talk:70.91.134.121. If you feel an account should be blocked, you can add an entry to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I hope this is of use to you, Notinasnaid 14:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black people

Hi Spylab. I just feel that in your attempt to discredit Rushton's definition (which is only 1 out of dozens in the article), you are adding stuff to the article that is far more offensive than the quote you are trying to discredit. The quote is not saying anything bad about black people, it's simply identifying a segment of the population that academic racialists uses the term to refer to. But in trying to discrecit the definition, you are adding negative stereotypes of black people to the article that will peak reader curiosity and cause them to read the source's theories. I also worry that if you try too hard to discredit the source, others will add information to defend the source, and then pretty soon the article will get off topic. I also worry you might start a trend where people who disagree with every controversial statement in the article will feel the need to discredit the source in the black people article itself instead of in the source's article. For example there are several on the talk page who disagree with Cheikh Anta Diop. I worry that people will follow your lead and feel the need to discredit him in the article on the grounds that the reader has the right to know his Afrocentric attitudes etc. It could cause a very well organized article to spiral into disorder. I do agree that it's important to establish that Rushton has been accused of racism and hence his definition may be biased (though still relevant since academic racism plays a huge role in the social construction of black identity), but I question the wisdom of going into specific details that publicize negative black stereotypes. It just seems like overkill when Rushton's quote has now been reduced to 1 sentence (his definition of negroid was taken out as was Michael levin's since defining negroid is arguabley off topic in this article) Anyway if you feel very strongly that it's important to include all this information I wont revert you (since you've compromised with me on this issue) but I leave this message as food for thought.Iseebias

• If revealing J. Philippe Rushton's actual acadamic credentials and racial/political biases (information that is backed up by reliable sources) is considered "offensive" and "discrediting" him, then perhaps his quotes should not be included in the black people article. In fact, a few editors have requested that his content be deleted from the article. I tend to agree, but am willing to comprimise by allowing his views to be in the article only if the necessary biographical information is included. Spylab 14:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. My intention in putting him in was simply to document the fact that proponents of racial theories reserve the term black only for those of PREDOMINANTLY sub-Saharan descent (as opposed to the 1 drop rule), and do not consider North Africans to be black. I feel this is an important contrast to make with Afrocentric scholars who take a much broader view on who is black, and the relevance of the whole sub-Saharan distinction becomes clear in the criticism section. Again, my only goal is to document the full spectrum of notable ways the term black is applied and academic racialism is certainly notable. If you feel that in the interest of full-disclosure, it is also important to document some of the racialist theories that accompany Rushton's definition, then I respect your decision. Iseebias

[edit] Redundancy

There's no need to have two redundant tags that redundantly repeat the same warning so that it's repeated. A tag that says There are some unverified and/or original research claims in here. Please add sources or fix it makes sense, because it's not redundant. Have two redundantly identical tags repeating the same redundant message is simply redundant. Repeating the tag doesn't add one iota of new content, it just repeats what was already said. Saying it once is a good idea, but repeating it in the next sentence is just redundant. WilyD 16:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White People

"deleted factually inaccurate claim that is not backed up by a reliable source" is backed by a reliable source which is [1] Follow talk page more carefully before deleting material. Lukas19 20:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the history, I didn't mean to delete that specific sentence in the article. It got deleted because it is was right after this one "Europeans have paler skin (and hair) than any other group on Earth and the extreme of the paleness adaptation is found only in people who are native to the region within 600 miles of the Baltic and North seas." [2] It's very easy to make mistakes when editing that article, because there is so much back-and-forth edit warring, and people inserting dodgy factual claims and racist opinions. Spylab 11:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-Racism Science

I've left a message for Edward Williams (talk • contribs) explaining some things about Wikipedia and asking for information about "Counter-Racism Science". (A quick Google came up with http://www.counter-racism.com/, but he may have a different group in mind.) I don't think the information he's adding to articles belongs in those articles, but perhaps it could belong somewhere else in Wikipedia.

While I'm here: thank you, thank you, thank you for your work on white people and similar articles. Cheers, CWC(talk) 07:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Links

Hi, please don't remove red wikilinks, as they encourage new articles to be written as per WP policy. Thanks! ShakingSpirit^talk 16:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence that red links encourage people to write articles. They just clutter up pages and make them look unprofessional. If a subject is notable, someone will write an article. Not every topic or person is important enough for an article. Spylab 16:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That's as may be, but please see WP:RED - those links are relevant to the subject matter, and should not be removed simply because the pages don't exist yet. ShakingSpirit^talk 16:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Spylab. I think it's implied that if something is worth documenting, it'll eventually have an article created for it. Some of these redlinks are pretty ridiculous, and will never have an article written for it. Salish88 02:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Salish88

[edit] Deletion of information

Similar to your mistake in white people article, you have also deleted information at this edit: [3] which you explained as: "copy edited for formatting, spelling, grammar, punctuation and wording" which does not justify your deletion. Be careful next time. Lukas19 02:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think you may be wrong about that. I moved content around to make it flow better, but I don't see any deletions.Spylab 10:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh. It was the edit right after yours [4] I guess I am the one who should be more careful next time...Lukas19 22:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

You have been blocked for 48 hours for repeatedly replacing a prod notice and therefore 3RR. Viridae^Talk 03:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw you'd been reprodding, and came to your talk page to point out WP:PROD#Conflicts. You will see that it says that you should not replace a prod once it has been contested, even if you find the reasoning flimsy, or it is the article's creator or an IP who does the deprodding. (You also shouldn't be calling a deprod vandalism, or putting down IP editors, either). --Groggy Dice T | C 17:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that according to strict enforcement of the rules, I should not have replaced legitimate prod tags even though they were deleted without justification by an anonymous IP user. However, judging by the aftermath, it looks like that although my methods were wrong, my reasoning was sound. From now on, I will always use the AFD type of deletion proposal (other than in cases that warrant speedy deletion), so other editors will be encouraged to discuss the issue, and because that kind of deletion proposal isn't supposed to be deleted until the discussion period is complete. I have learned that it is pointless to post the other kind of deletion tag since anyone can delete it without a reason at any time, and it isn't supposed to be replaced, no matter how justified it is. I find it interesting that the anonymous IP user who kept reverting my edits was not also temporarily banned for 3RR, especially since that person offered no justification for the edits, and did not respond to requests for explanations in my edit notes and in comments on that anonymous IP user's talk page. The only edits that the anonymous IP user made was to delete legitimate deletion proposals, without offering any explanation other than "seems notable." Spylab 10:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

I hate to be pedantic, but after referring to my Collins English Dictionary - ISBN 00-433134-6, neither lineup or breakup are listed. Indeed lineup is spelt 'line-up', and breakup as either 'break up' or 'break-up'. I will accept this may be a difference between English english and American english, but as Sham 69 is an English based band, surely the mother tongue (and its spelling) should prevail.

Derek R Bullamore 15:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if there is a geographic variation in the way they are spelled, but according to dictionary.com they can be spelled either way. My preference is to use the spellings without the hyphen, and that's the way I usually see those words spelled on Wikipedia Spylab 10:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red links

Hi, Spylab! Please, do not remove red links from Wikipedia articles as you did, for example, here. Red links are pointers to articles that have not yet been written but should be written at some point of time in future. Removing them is only warranted when a topic being linked should not have an article. Additionally, in this particular case, the backlinks these red links produce are vital to another project dealing with cross-referencing, organization, and categorization of articles on Russian geographic locations.

Please see WP:RED for additional information about red links. Thank you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have seen no evidence that red links encourage people to write articles. They just clutter up pages and make them look unprofessional. If a subject is notable, someone will write an article. Not every topic or person is important enough for an article. Spylab 16:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've seen otherwise, but that's not my point. In this particular case, the backlinks produced by these red links is what's important. There are tens of thousands geographic points in Russia, all of which need to have articles eventually (geographic locations are not subject to notability criteria, by the way; they only need to be verifiable). Absence of organization, categorization, disambiguation, and proper cross-linking creates unnecessary amounts of needless cleanup and maintenance after the articles have been written.

Additionally, no matter what your personal view of the matter is, removing valid red links is against WP:RED. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Twisted Wheel

Hello Spylab. I have just had a look at your edits for the Twisted Wheel page. I agree a little tuning was needed but the edits applied seem to have been done with a butchers knife. Please revisit the page, reinstate the connections with Chris Rea's song ( check with him for citation) the map links are useful for placement and I believe articles should reflect the subject matter and not simply be cold. Put back the soul you took out Ska man. regards, Docludi.

• The song lyrics are uncited, and seem out of place in an serious encyclopedic article. The link to the site with the maps is already in the External Links section, so there is no real need to have that link in the body of the article, unless a specific page of that site is used as a reference. However, the link I deleted was merely a link to the front page, which isn't very useful as a reference in that particular sentence. The reader shouldn't have to search through a site to find the specific information that is being used to support a statement. The section of text with the improperly-formatted title From "Whitworth Street" is uncited and seems to be pasted directly from a book or website. The other section I deleted, saying soul all-nighters were the first raves, is uncited opinion, otherwise known as original research. Spylab 10:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)