Jump to content

User talk:Spylab

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Modelsides (talk | contribs) at 22:26, 27 June 2007 (Earlier warnings moved to the correct place). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hippie edits

Your edit of the hippie lead removed quite a bit of elaborately sourced material that has been worked out in compromise by various editors over the past year. I reverted to a previous version by Viriditas (one of the main contributing editors). Apostle12 19:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did not remove a single thing from that article. I corrected the formatting and improved the wording and order of the first section. Spylab 20:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spylab, it's good to see you've taken an interest in improving the Hippie article. I hope the three of us can work together. Could I ask you to please be a little more civil towards other editors? You accused Apostle12 of bad faith in the edit summary and I think that's unfair. While I too have had my disagreements with other editors, Apostle12 has spent a lot of time and hard work on the page. He's also very keen on the subject. Let's try to maintain a friendly, working relationship and learn from each other. —Viriditas | Talk 19:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White supremacy edits

Hi. I'd like to retain the "Contemporary white supremacist groups" section of our White supremacy article. I hope that Chip Berlet himself will provide some cites for at least one para of it. See User talk:Cberlet#Request for info/corrections/cites, where I explain one of my motives.

Ideally, every claim in a Wikipedia article would have a cite, but we generally allow uncited non-controversial claims that could be cited if/when someone does the research. Is there any particular statement in that section that you are concerned about?

Thanks again for your good work here. Cheers, CWC 06:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The origins of "hip"

Somehow during your recents edits of the "Hippie" article an important reference was ignored. This is an article by Jesse Sheidlower that appeared in "Slate" magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2110811/), where he specifically and knowledgably refutes the theory that the word "hip" derives from "hep" in the West African Wolof language. Scheidlower maintains that the origins of "hip" are unknown, and given his credentials I believe we need to pay attention to his analysis. Thanks. Apostle12 03:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spylab, you are doing good work around here, but do you think your edit which changed the origins of "hip" from unknown to disputed is supported by the citations? From what I can tell, it isn't. Could you provide the name of a reputable linguist who recognizes a dispute? The current version of the OED lists the origin of the word "hip" as unknown, as does the citation. Please change it back. —Viriditas | Talk 12:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Holloway is citing Dalby. [1]. —Viriditas | Talk 12:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article says on one hand there's a theory that it came from an African word, but also that one expert disagrees with that theory. That means the origin is disputed. If the word "unknown" is used, it implies that nobody has any clue about where the word comes from. Spylab 12:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring about Category:African-American topics

Hi, Spylab. Please stop edit warring on Wigger and try to work it out on the talkpage. See my post here. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 10:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Editing the football hooliganism page

I am in the middle of editing this article. It is a long process and I am doing it gradually, and have been working on it now for about two hours. Your removal of some content for instance from the Ghan section, whilst well meaning is only making editing this more difficult. I would just ask that you wait a while until I can finish editing some of this which was in a total mess from the major edit recently made. Thanks♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 17:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those sentences were not about Ghana, so they did not belong in that section. They were also uncited, so my deletion of those sentences was totally appropriate and justified. There is no way for me, or any other editor, to guess that you were planning on correcting the problem. I simply saw a mistake and fixed it. Spylab 17:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know they weren't about Ghana and I wasn't having a go at, or criticising, you for doing so, just asking for patience as if you check the history of the article, it shows how I have been gradually working mainly on the African section this afternoon and slowly moving sentences to appropriate headings. I should have put a note on the talk page to explain what I was doing so that is an error for which I apologise. I have now moved the two sentences into the correct section of the article. The whole article still needs a lot of work doing on it and your edits have gone a long way toward improving it, but I will state again that I wasn't criticising you, just asking for patience. thanks♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 17:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now a damn site better following your edits and mine adding to the major edit made by User:Chloride even though they are apparently a sock puppet, and the article needs maintaining by editors such as yourself. There is still a long way to go, as some countries entries are still, to say the least, a hell of a mess. England for instance, Russia and so on.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 17:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Trash talk from Morgan Wright

Thanks for trashing the Harry Gibson article, dude. You obviously don't know anything about the artist. I'm very tempted to revert. You did a few things to improve some wording here and there, but mostly you just trashed the whole article, which was written by me and about 2 or 3 other Harry Gibson afficianodos. Adding "cite references" to a song because you never heard it? All you have to do is look it up on napster, dude. The song is called "Get hip to Shirley MacLaine" and it's on the 1989 album. I would not need to tell you all this if you were familiar with the artist's work, but if you are not familiar with the artist then why take it upon yourself to basically re-write a whole article about him? Maybe you should get one or two of his records first. I'm about 80% sure I will just revert tomorrow or the next day. The new version really sucks.Morgan Wright 02:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did not trash the Harry Gibson article. I have attempted to bring it up to encyclopedic standards. Perhaps you should familarize yourself with Wikipedia guidlines, such as Wikipedia:Citing sources and The five pillars of Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't just for readers who are familiar with a topic already, otherwise nobody would learn anything by reading it. Wikipedia is for presenting verified facts backed up by reliable sources. Also, please be careful to write your comments on talk pages, not editors' user pages. Spylab 13:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight. I mentioned that he did a song about Shirley MacLaine. You said it was probably wrong. I then cited the name of the album it was on. Then you told me to cite a reference proving it was on there. So I made a reference to the TITLE of the song on that album. Then you ask me to cite an outside reference that says the song is really on the album. What the F*&^% is wrong with you? Just get the album yourself and listen to the song. Then maybe familiarize yourself with the artist. You destroyed the article. What you did was basically the same as somebody like me, a person who knows very little about Beethoven, editing an article about Beethoven that was written by Beethoven experts, and asking them to prove that he actually wrote the 9th symphony. You must be out of your mind. I reverted the article. I will go back tomorrow and study some of the changes you made that actually help the article, and rewrite it myself using many of your suggestions. But you heavy-handedly destroyed the article and I must salvage it, since about 4 of us Hipster fans wrote in. Please don't edit it anymore. Let us do it, since we actually know the artist's work. Morgan Wright 02:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just what I expected, you reverted again. It seems you have a history of starting edit wars. You need to ask yourself why you have all these wars. Maybe it's because people don't like you destroying their articles. I'm going to revert the Harry Gibson artice again but this time with many of the suggestions you made to make it more encyclopedic, and if you revert it back a third time there will be open war.Morgan Wright 10:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hammerskins

What's your problem with this extra-info? Even if there's no direct link, it's additional information I'm sure many people will be interested in. Both times extremist right wing organizations are concerned - the Hammer League was a forerunner of Nazi organizations ... the hammer was used early on in these circles. So why do you insist on removing this info? 217.236.219.126 15:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "extra info." It's irrelevant trivia. The fact that another group used the term hammer in its name has no legitimate place in an encyclopedic article about Hammerskins. The groups aren't connected in any way, just as West Ham United F.C. (sometimes called "The Hammers", and who have had skinhead fans, like most British football teams) is not connected to Hammerskins in any way. Spylab 16:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism wasnt my doing

I did not personally vandalise the Enoch Powell article and i did check the article itself so i cannot deny that it was done from my account. My username has been misused within a public access network due to my own negligence. The error is regretted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tusharh (talk • contribs) 19:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Understood. I merely pressed the "Undo" button when I reverted that bad edit, so in the edit note it automatically wrote the account name that was signed in when that edit was made. Spylab 20:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Reggae

This guy has an inaccurate definition of Reggae and has edited out much accurate input that I have spent much hard work putting in.


I think he should talk to some real experts in the field as he hasn't a clue. He should speak to some of the many live artists that were there when the music was actually invented. Ernest Ranglin and speak to some of the real people who were around in the beggining and who have expert knowledge. How about Lee Perry? I am a producer and sound engineer, you are a blodclut

Look at the official history of Reggae as they will prove you wrong wrong wrong!!!!!!

Read the following and overstand!!!:


Studio One Story DVD/book.

Young, Gifted and Black: The Story of Trojan Records (Paperback) by Michael De Koningh (Author), Laurence Cane-Honeysett (Author)

Bass Culture: When Reggae Was King (Paperback) by Lloyd Bradley (Author)

Tighten Up!: The History of Reggae in the UK (Paperback) by Michael de Koningh (Author), Marc Griffiths (Author)

Dub: Soundscapes and Shattered Songs in Jamaican Reggae (Music Culture): Soundscapes and Shattered Songs in Jamaican Reggae (Music Culture) (Paperback) by Michael E. Veal (Author)

How to Play Reggae Guitar: Complete Guide in Tablature and Standard Notation (CD Pak) (Paperback) by Ray Hitchins (Author)

This is Reggae Music: The Story of Jamaica's Music (Paperback) by Prince Buster (Foreword), Lloyd Bradley (Author)

Reggae Bass with CD (Audio) (Bass Builders) (Paperback) by Hal Leonard Publishing Corporation (Author), Ed Friedland (Author), Friedland Ed (Composer)

Reggae Keyboards (Paperback) by Jimmy Peart (Author)

The First Rasta: Leonard Howell and the Rise of Rastafarianism (Paperback) by Helene Lee (Author), Stephen Davis (Introduction) "When Bob Marley began his reggae crusade in 1972, he came armed not just with the best street poet's songbook since Bob Dylan, but with..." (more)


For now on I will no longer add any edits to any wikipedia articles. This is becasue of d*cks like Spylab.

Many of the articles with therfore really be inaccurate! -Divy!!!

  • Feel free to provide specific references (i.e. footnotes) when editing Reggae and other articles to back up your claims, and try to avoid injecting your own personal opinions into Wikipedia articles. Understand that articles will continue to be improved for grammar, organization, factual accuracy and writing style after you make an edit. Do not make personal attacks against other Wikipedia editors or you will be banned. Finally, feel free to sign up for a Wikipedia account instead of using an anonymous IP address from London, England. Spylab 10:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop punk started in 1970s, not 1990s

I do not agree with this statement. If you look on the page Pop punk... you'll see that the term wasn't even around until the 80s. In any event... as you may have seen... my larger problem was that bands are being listed as pop punk without one mention of pop punk in their articles. This goes against WP:CAT. I'm not a bearacrat or a deletionist. You may noticed I haven't messed with your update to the Buzzcocks since you worked it into the article.--Dr who1975 01:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rememeber... just because something is pop and punk... doesn;t make it pop punk. Otherwise Fall Out Boy is a pop punk band.--Dr who1975 02:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it bother's my that I have to be the one to tell you what you should do... why don;t you update the Pop punk page... I'd be curious to see what people say (seriously... your updates might get accepted).--Dr who1975 02:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you know... some people would be very insulted if bands like The Buzzcocks, the Ramones, or the Jam were labeled pop punk.. you have to think about the big picture here. How come you don't mess with Tenpole Tudor, The Damned, Siouxsie & the Banshees, or Bauhaus (band)?!?! Where does punk end and pop punk begin?--Dr who1975 02:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW... I was getting sick of having to monitor this stuff anyway. But you've now made it where any band that is remotely punk and remotely pop is pop punk. You've opened the door to a lot of crap that will make pop punk indistinguishable from pop or punk. I was looking for an excuse to give up on this anyway so thank for giving me one. -Cheers--Dr who1975 22:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have categorized pop punk bands as pop punk bands, and in most cases, provided multiple sources showing that those bands are considered pop punk (in addition to other genres in many cases). Some editors have tried to pretend that certain bands actually aren't considered pop punk punk bands, for whatever reason; probably because of the negative stigma associated with more recent wimpy mainstream American pop punk bands (and bands from other countries that imitate them). However, the fact remains, pop punk started many years before those 1990s bands formed and got mainstream media attention.Spylab 10:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ur-

As you have noted, ur- means "prot(o)-", "first", "oldest", "original" when used with a noun." An ur-text is therefore a proto-text/first text/oldest text/original text. Ur- is not significantly more "German" than much of the rest of the English language--it appears as a conventional prefix in Merriam-Webster's, where one of the examples is urtext. The quoted critic, Sabin, employs the term in a straightforward way. The article on ur- however, could definitely use some improvement.—DCGeist 16:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madness article

I can see you're currently editting the article, merging sections/ammending grammar, etc. I don't have any problems with this, but I'll wait until you've finished editting until I make any changes myself, as it seems to be conflicting. Sam Orchard 15:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock opera

I'm not accusing anyone of vandalism. I'm saying that many good faith edits were made that unfortunately resulted in the loss of much of the article's useful information. I have restored the text to a December version, which is a much better starting place than where it was this morning, and I'm going to go through and try to work on it. The article is almost completely unreferenced. It's fine to say that we don't want too many list on Wikipedia, but if the text of the article is incomprehensible, then at least a list gives one an idea of what is going on. -- Ssilvers 15:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to Your bad edits and false accusations

As to your note

1. Please do not add huge sections of terrible English spelling and grammar to articles such as Neo-Nazism. 2. Please do not add your biased personal opinions to articles, as you did to that article. 3. Do not make false accusations of vandalism when other editors correct your mistakes, as you did in that article 4. Please sign up for a Wikipedia account instead of using an anonymous IP address to make your edits. Spylab 20:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • the spelling is corrected, the grammar is ok
  • biased and pesonal opinion is not a matter here
  • do not make false pretext to delete completely legal additions to that section - you are vandalizing this article definitely
  • learn that it is quite legal to contribute anonymously -unsigned

As to your second note on my talk page

I repeat. Do not make false accusations of vandalism, as you did in an edit note in Neo-Nazism, and on my talk page. If you continue to do so, you will be reported to Wikipedia administration and your IP address may be blocked. In response to your unsigned comments on my talk page, the incorrect grammar in your edits to the Croatia section of the Neo-Nazism article has not been corrected to meet proper English standards; not by a longshot. When you add biased comments such as (non-existent) in front of term like Bleiburg massacre, you are adding your personal opinion, which is not acceptable. If that massacre is actually non-existant, than deal with your concerns in the Bleiburg massacre article instead of vandalizing the Neo-Nazism article. Whether your edits are legal is not the issue. The issue is whether your edits follow Wikipedia guidelines and are in the spirit of the Wikipedia community. Spylab 11:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

  • It is quite apparent that you vandalized the article on several occassions - removal of references and the whole text even in the case where the text was a quite correct quotation
  • I did not write the text - I've just tried to correct it - as much as the idle time I had. As to your supposed and epressed knowledge of the English language grammar - my first advice to you - learn the difference between the verb active and pasive states
  • As you could see NovaNova added proper reference showing clearly that the 'Bleibirg' did not happen - so make an effort to familiraize with the subject before trying to imply ignorance to somebody else.
  • My edits are in full accordance to the Wikipedia guidelines; please, be familiraized fully with these guidelines before trying to demand nonsense
  • As to the "you will be reported to Wikipedia administration" be advised that at least ten people warned you about lacking the civilty - when responding to other editors - and the effective knowledge of the subjects you've been editing. So, you might expect experiencing some unpleasant things you are 'recommending' to me - pretty soon. --72.75.18.173 22:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove merger tags

Please don't remover merger tags. If you want to oppose a merger then do it on the respective talk page. You can address the merger for Nordic theory into Fascism here :Talk:Fascism#Merging_Nordic_theory_into_this_article. Don't remove the tag unless consensus is made. Thanks. Rokus01 01:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on British National Front. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. ~ Wikihermit 02:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken, as the edit history of that article clearly displays. I have made only one reversion, to an edit made by a neo-Nazi sock puppet who has been banned from editing Wikipedia. Spylab 02:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see two edits in one day. If the guys a sock, contact an admin. I removed the warning. ~ Wikihermit 03:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, follow the valid Wikipedia rules

Please, avoid tagging IP addresses as sock-puppets! You are not a person who can prove who is behind an IP address. Be adviced to contact Wikipedia administration and place a request to a check user!!!

  1. 20:39, 23 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:British National Front (warning about neo-Nazi sock puppet editing this article) (top)
  2. 20:32, 23 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User:205.236.144.4 (sock puppet template) (top)
  3. 20:32, 23 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User:24.201.17.56 (sock puppet template) (top)
  4. 20:32, 23 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User:24.203.22.162 (sock puppet template) (top)
  5. 20:31, 23 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Laderov (added new IP to the list) (top)
  6. 20:30, 23 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User:24.203.217.170 (sock puppet template) (top)
  7. 20:29, 23 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:24.203.217.170 (This IP is an sock puppet of a Montreal neo-Nazi who has been banned from Wikipedia)

--Modelsides 19:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That IP user has been banned from Wikipedia again. See message on his talk page. Spylab 01:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right! How about this - all anonymous are somenone's puppets? You are the one authorised to mark them that way?
  1. 13:59, 16 May 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:87.244.80.169 (sock puppet) (top)
  1. 21:40, 10 April 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:24.201.17.56 (sock puppet)
  2. 21:35, 10 April 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:24.203.22.162 (sock puppet) (top)
  3. 21:34, 10 April 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:EuropeanLynx (sock puppet)
  4. 21:33, 10 April 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:ProudAryan (sock puppet)
  5. 21:31, 10 April 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:205.236.144.4 (Sock Puppet)
  1. 17:31, 8 February 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:209.217.96.177 (→Vandalism to various articles - Last warning due to more vandalism)
  1. 04:00, 6 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:71.252.81.35 (sock puppet)
  2. 04:00, 6 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:24.57.101.133 (don't use sock puppets) (top)

--Modelsides 22:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility and knowledge - at the first place, please

I've noticed your entry in the Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading your claim

  1. Ante Starčević - Full of grammar, spelling and formatting errors; as well as blatant POV-pushing. I have corrected a few mistakes, but those corrections will likely be destroyed as soon as they are discovered by certain hostile editors who unjustifiably describe necessary copy editing as "vandalism" (see edit history of Neo-Nazism#Croatia). Spylab 14:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, respond to my questions below

  1. (cur) (last) 13:45, 25 June 2007 Spylab (Talk | contribs) (23,191 bytes) (→Footnotes - added cleanup tag because some of the notes are way too long)

Could you, please, tell us how did you calculate that the notes are way too long?

  1. (cur) (last) 13:17, 25 June 2007 Spylab (Talk | contribs) (23,155 bytes) (→Literary and linguistic work - corrected grammar & spelling in poorly-translated sentence)

The 'corrected' sentence

It was demonstrated publicly immediately after Karadžić's death - when Croatian Parliament (Sabor) collected a considerable amount of money in order to errect a monument to honor Karadžić in Croatia and the Court chanchellor Ivan Mažuranić got the Viennese Imperial Court to financially support the Karadžić' widow.

is not translation and your 'grammar and spelling correction is welcome - but the text removal - is not! Also, the 'Court' is the correct spelling and not your 'court' - the 'court' here is not definitively a valid knowledge of the contemporary English grammar.

  1. (cur) (last) 12:58, 25 June 2007 Spylab (Talk | contribs) (23,202 bytes) (added 2 tags because there are many problems that need to be corrected in this article)
  2. (cur) (last) 12:55, 25 June 2007 Spylab (Talk | contribs) m (23,133 bytes) (deleted strange and unnecesssary adjective in intro)

The adjective 'provincial' is correct and necessary - due to the fact that Starcevic was a provincial writer, better say a scribe, whose writtings did not draw any attention of the educated men in the Austro-Hungarian Empire - outside the province of Croatia.

  1. (cur) (last) 12:52, 25 June 2007 Spylab (Talk | contribs) (23,144 bytes) (→Literary and linguistic work - deleted totally POV sentence that also had horrible spelling & grammar)

The sentence has some spelling errors - but totally POV is not. As I do understand, from a previous discussion, you've publicly stated that you did not know anything about Croata and were not able to read in or understand Croatian language? So, what makes you to disqualify something you know nothing about???

In his vain and racistic effors to oppose and derail Karadžić's work, he was loner and loser - mainstream of the Croatian educated men, headed by Strossmayer and Gaj, highly appreciated and supported Karadžić.

--Giorgio Orsini 21:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You obviously don't understand proper English grammar and basic Wikipedia guidelines, especially the one about neutrality. Perhaps you should leave the editing to those who do.Spylab 10:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, avoid ....

...vandalizing the Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading as you did it already twice (here [2] and here [3])

--Giorgio Orsini 22:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • If I see it again - I'll report it immediately - as an incident - to the Wikipedia administration.

--Giorgio Orsini 22:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wow. just wow.

I am at awe at how much patience you have for Giorgio. I would have snapped within five minutes. - Pandacomics 23:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


RE: Starčević

Thanks for the support. From my experience, however, I can tell you there's no easy solution to this problem. I've fought long battles for truth in some articles. When one professional hater gives up, another one will appear soon enough. And don't expect much from the administrators. The haters' behavior is most often not vandalism, just delusional obstinacy. There's one consolation, but it's rather metaphysical: truth will prevail eventually. It's a question of patience. Never give up, that's my motto. --Zmaj 07:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier warnings moved to the correct place

Removing warnings from your talk page is considered vandalism. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia and your talk page will be protected from editing if you do it again. --Modelsides 22:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that two persons [4]. [5] warned you about your un-civil behavior on your user page. My advice to you - in the future, remove them only after moving them here!

Thanks for trashing the Harry Gibson article, dude. You obviously don't know anything about the artist. I'm very tempted to revert. You did a few things to improve some wording here and there, but mostly you just trashed the whole article, which was written by me and about 2 or 3 other Harry Gibson afficianodos. Adding "cite references" to a song because you never heard it? All you have to do is look it up on napster, dude. The song is called "Get hip to Shirley MacLaine" and it's on the 1989 album. I would not need to tell you all this if you were familiar with the artist's work, but if you are not familiar with the artist then why take it upon yourself to basically re-write a whole article about him? Maybe you should get one or two of his records first. I'm about 80% sure I will just revert tomorrow or the next day. The new version really sucks.Morgan Wright 02:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am probably from the USA and like to scrap others' contributions due to what I call "factual correctness" - instead of knowing the facts and reporting them! - unsigned 13:44, 21 July 2006 BennisTheMenace

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spylab&oldid=141055721"