Jump to content

User talk:Editor437/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Welcome!!

Hello, Editor437, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. We're so glad you're here! — Lost(talk) 13:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your report at WP:AIV. I have blocked the vandal — Lost(talk) 13:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Blanking your talk page

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia! I just want to make it clear for you, that you did nothing wrong by blanking your talk page. Although archiving is preferred, you are allowed to delete items from your talk page as you wish. This is explained here. If you have any questions, feel free to add them to my talk page. - Rjd0060 03:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Coltrane Covers

Shouldn't we be seeking album covers rather than deleting to be consistent? Or are you planning to upload the remaining covers and then reinstate the others? Gareth E Kegg 00:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think all the images have been restored to the articles. Many of them already had fair use rationales. There was no good reason to delete them. Editor437, please give more thought to what you are doing before you cancel out the efforts of others. -MrFizyx 20:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

George Lane

Hi Editor437, I noticed that you reverted an edit of mine on the Ole Coltrane page several months back. I understand that Dolphy might have been credited as "George Lane" on that album for contractual reasons, as you write in your edit summary, but I was wondering if you had a source of any kind to back that up. It would be a good thing to give a citation for, as it currently looks as if Dolphy at some point actually went by the name George Lane. Buck Mulligan (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I understand the motivation for many of those artists to adopt pseudonyms in order to get around contractual obligations, and I'm glad to see that you have a source. I'll add a note to the Ole page with the info you put on my talk page. Thanks. Buck Mulligan (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That interview you refer to validates my arguement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.37.46 (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure - the fact that he says "I never wrote that I "believe Bonds has never done steroids."" is evidence that he wrote the statement "I believe Bonds has never done steroids." Good argument there. Editor437 (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


He says he never wrote he believes it, but does he believe it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.37.46 (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave Zirin edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dave Zirin. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Pastordavid (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The way forward is to go with sourced information. Because the current information (you version and the IP's version) is not sourced, it should be removed (that second section, I mean). This is a biography of a living person, and as such we have stricter guidelines for the sourcing of information. Further, do not continue to edit war. (1) Place a well-worded, sourced version in the article. (2) If it is reverted, leave a kind note on the IP talk page asking for discussion on the talk page. (3) Revert once to the sourced version. (4) If you are reverted again, post a request for input at third opinion page, as well as a notice on the bio. of living people noticeboard.
Continuing to do simple reverts will result in blocking - just being "right" does not justify edit warring. Pastordavid (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave zirin is editor 347 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.94.0.238 (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've protected your user page from new new and unregistered users for two weeks per the edits from the IP/s. PeterSymonds (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I will. Basically you should warn users about vandalism or other additions with user template messages. When four of them have been issued in stages (note, caution, warning and final warning) then the IP should be reported to WP:AIV. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Duke Ellington category loop

Thanks for creating an outstanding Duke Ellington template! I noticed that there is now a category/subcategory loop within Category:Duke Ellington, with the main Duke Ellington category being included as a subcategory of itself, and although I am not totally sure I think that this was probably created by the inclusion of the template on the category page. Although I have not seen templates included on other category pages before (usually I just see them included in the category itself) and don't know if it is the usual practice, I have no problem with it myself. But it would be good if you could close the category loop. You are obviously experienced in making templates, I know have seen a line of code somewhere that does this. Thanks. InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Another template issue

(Just got your reply, thanks! Maybe you will have noticed the issue below before I finish this message?) Looking more closely at Category:Duke Ellington, I notice that adding the template to the pages on his songs, etc. has had the effect of adding all of those articles to the main Duke Ellington category. The song articles do not properly belong in the main Duke Ellington category, but in its subcategory Category:Songs with music by Duke Ellington. This also goes for albums, etc. The simple way to fix this, as far as I know, would be to remove the line of code in the template that automatically adds pages with the template to the main Duke Ellington category, and return to adding the category to pages manually. Would that be acceptable to you?

Thanks again for your excellent work. InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Friendly note about talk page messages

Hello. As a recent editor at User talk:96.247.103.165, I wanted to leave you a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk page. While we may prefer that messages be archived, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous users- from deleting comments from their own talk pages. The only talk page messages that may not be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppetry notices, or shared IP header templates (for anonymous editors) ... and these exceptions are just to keep a user from gaming the system. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A note about accusing people of "sockpuppetry"

Hi, I saw your accusation on the talk page of 75.208.6.68. Sockpuppetry is serious business on Wikipedia, and you accused the same person of having multiple IP addresses. Just to let you know:

  • 75.208.6.68 is Verizon, NJ
  • 96.247.103.165 is Verizon, VA
  • 119.94.0.238 is in Australia (as are all the 119.x. you listed
  • 122.144.118.160 is in Australia
  • 58.69.106.184 is too

Please be cautious with accusations. BMW(drive) 22:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

  • While it is possible the Aussies are all the same person, obviously the 2 Verizon's aren't! If you truly believe you're being attacked by a sockpuppet, use the links from the WP:SOCK page to report it. If you have a past history with someone, it may be additional proof. The Barry Bonds situation in particular has people widely (and angrily) on 2 sides of a fence .. very few sitting on it. People have to accept that people have points of view, but more importantly that Wikipedia is neutral point of view. Getting into edit wars in the first place is going to bring people against you. At this point, rather than provoke, you need to bury a hatchet. Your edits should be neutral and citeable ... if they get deleted, revert once or twice, then get another editor to help. That's all I can suggest right now. BMW(drive) 23:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You did not receive an angry response from administrators, they were merely providing you with information. The Barry Bonds edits prior to Dave Zirin's entry being locked were neutral and did not warrant a report of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.8.129 (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Personally, I say "don't stop editing". You're right, someone followed you all over and reverted your edits no matter where they happened. That's called "being a phoquehead" - it was obviously a personal attack and vandalism at the same time, and as such the person should have been banned. There's no room for that kind of childishness on Wikipedia simply because someone else has a different point of view. Maybe you might want to create a new account to use temporarily until things cool off. Don't make your edit pattern noticeable, or the idiot might just follow you again. I'm not an admin, but if I was I would deal with the obvious planned and personal attacks and vandalism that ANYONE does. One other piece of advice - at least for now - if you see someone who "might" be the idiot doing edits, don't revert or delete them yourself, let someone else do it - let sleeping dogs lie, and eventually they might start acting like an adult. BMW(drive) 10:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Good riddance, nobody cares about your edits anyways —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.216.150 (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

dont you dare edit my talk page

you understand that son? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.37.61 (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Blow meEditor437 (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Calm it! Don't let this guy drag you into incivility too. – ClockworkSoul 21:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

dont run from wikipedia like a scared little girl. come back and be a man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.37.61 (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


endashes

Could you convince the editor, User:T-rex using the script to convert in mass articles using endashes into html symbol that I cannot tell the difference in the edit window when it is an article I am working on. It is personal preference and he is doing mass edits with his script, not considering the editors who are working on the article. He is interrupting the editing process with his mass changing of articles with his script without any consultation on the talk page. Please convince him to discuss on the article talk page first. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This comment [1] from User:Christopher Parham on his talk page is also telling User:T-rex to stop. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you feel the need to delete certain material from the encyclopedia? Just because you happen to he a never was does not mean that others do not have accomplishments that should be recognized. Losers like you need to get a job and a life. What is it like to hide behind a computer and act like you are something you are not. LOSER!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jparadee (talk • contribs) 01:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about - not sure if I "happen to he a never" since I don't know what that meansEditor437 (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Coltrane Discography

Hello! I used the information gleaned from [2], using the dates around the releases to ascertain probable release dates. The Believer, Prestige 7292, for instance, was released after 7290: Baby, Baby, Baby (Jimmy Witherspoon) [5/6/63, 7/8/63], and just before 7293: Exultation! (Booker Ervin) [6/19/63], so a release around mid 1963 seems reasonable.

First problem with the infobox chronology is whether or not the discography should be about chronological release or recording. It seemed reasonable to include the records that were released whilst coltrane was under contract with the various labels; Prestige, in particular, kept milking his back catalogue for a decade after, and it seemed helpful to include the releases chronologically to give a sense of artistic development. This sadly means a lot of fine albums have been missed out-especially interstellar regions, coltrane's sound and transitions. If you disagree, please say. I'm sorry if I missed any discussions concerning this; his discography is mind-bogglingly complicated. Keep up the good work! Franciselliott (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Bit More

It struck me that it would be nice to take each page in the main discography, and to include links to 'satellite' albums. Obvious examples would include Coltrane's Sound and Coltrane Plays the Blues being mentioned in the My Favourite Things page, or that Soultrane was recorded 3 days after half of Milestones. I vaguely remember mention of a Red Garland album being recorded the same day as Traneing In, too. The nice thing about wikipedia is the way you can skim or focus, go out far or really zoom in. Excuse my burbles.Franciselliott (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please explain

You just placed a message: "Please do not make personal attacks" at my talk page. Personal attacks against which person? I only created a new article by pasting some content from another already existing article. This is all.Biophys (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Lokesh Dhakal

Hi, I think your CSD nomination of Lokesh Dhakal was a bit premature. Though unreferenced, it states he's a leader in the Nepali Congress--which is a claim of notability--and my cursory search showed produced at least a few instances of media coverage (e.g., here). justinfr (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I figured so, and I've done the same. The peacocky language (e.g., "young and energetic") is usually a spam red flag. justinfr (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

James Humphreys (lawyer)

Deletion nomination for James Humphreys (lawyer) is not approriate on notability grounds, he is also mentioned in an existing article. Also better to let articles mature slightly rather than SD within minutes? Just a thought. James humphreys (lawyer) now redirects to James Humphreys (lawyer) familytree101 (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I proposed Afd, not SD, and only for the lower case article, not the upper case and not on the grounds of notabilityEditor437 (talk) 04:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That is now clear and makes sense - no objections. Thanks familytree101 (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

PS on the above logic should http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Humphreys(writer)&redirect=no be deleted? serves little purpose as is (Obviously the page it redirects to is valid) familytree101 (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Kimberley Paradee, Author

Why would you want to delete a published author who writes books to help people. It seems that there is validity to the post and it should stay, unless you can explain a better reason. She is very notable and I believe the article should stand. She is published and is releasing her second book soon. Verify the references and you will see this to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jparadee (talk • contribs) 12:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Marc Horowitz

I have removed the speedy tag you placed on this article because I don't think {{db-repost}} applies - there is no evidence I can find that this has been subject to a deletion discussion before; Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marc_Horowitz does not exist. Ros0709 (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Warning=

Please read the WP:CSD criteria before you do any more patrolling. Although you are right most of the time, you are not using t he criteria properly, For example, Books and other fiction can not be deleted via speedy for lack of notability. Neither can schools. It says these things explicitly . And "no context" only means that you can not identify what the subject of the article is--not that it is a bad article. Promotional only applies to articles that cannot be rewritten or stubbified to be informative. And see WP:STUB about the minimum requirements for an article. The excessive tagging you are doing is not reasonable--nobody can properly evaluate articles at the speed of one or two per minute. And if an admin or anyone other than the author has removed a speedy, do not place another, except for copyvio, but nominated for AfD. DGG (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And please don't tag books as G11 either. Speedy criteria is for really obvious, limited cases. I had to decline 4 other of your tagged entries. Please review WP:CSD before doing any more tagging or we'll have to remove your access to automated tools such as Friendly. -- lucasbfr talk 09:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The Article Ron Jacobs Memorial Playing Field is on a notable subject it is the home of a midland league rugby club and if people keep on over looking the midland league on wikipedia the rugby union section will never be complete. There was plenty Infomation to expand the article on the dissusion page if you idiot had actually look and not just used a bot to do your bidding. I Created the article midlands 1 with proper sourced teams and information trying to expand the midlands league section on the website but some one deleted it ever though it had the correct infomation and links.

Your Disgustedly!

Whittlepedia (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Alison Angel

I appreciate your feedback. I'll go over the standards and requested criteria tonight to see what can be modified on the page to keep it from being deleted. IN the mean time, I wanted to inquire why mods and other editors have been so against this entry. The previous pages were blatant marketing and needed to be deleted. I believe this new page is free from any of that material. Unfortunately, there is little information on free websites available regarding her work. Her fan base is more than adequate which can be seen with quick google search showing various comments on forums and social networking sites. Although the entry is short on content, she is well known enough to deserve a entry. As I have stated before, I'm not even a huge fan but was surprised there was no information on wikipedia about someone who is mentioned so often online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Cptnono (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Editor437/Archive_1&oldid=1139183821"