User talk:Editor437/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, Editor437, and

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

WP:AIV. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)

08:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

(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)

Hello. As a recent editor at

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.
  (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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;

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)

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)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.