User talk:Hyperspeed2000

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ricardo Lancaster-Jones y Verea has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your input in this article on the discussion page. If you know of an image that we can use for the article then we would be grateful to you if you could load it to the commons. Richard Avery (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!! Regarding your "editing some of the minor changes recently made" on the Lancaster-Jones article, you managed somehow to restore the POV, cruft, hyperbole and redlinks (of which there are still an overwhelming number) which were removed for a reason -- to enhance the article's clarity, navigability and to make it more encyclopaedic. Your respect for the gentleman and your enthusiasm are appreciated. I do not wish to get into an edit war, so let's try to compromise and make the article better for posterity.

Yours, Quis separabit? 03:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quis separabit?!!

I appreciate you took the time in looking at the article. To search for the quality of any article is indeed an ideal of every contributor.

1) When you write: "...you managed somehow to restore..." Let me point that I didn't restore the article to the old version (I didn't "undo"), I accepted your contributions in redaction (the form of writing) when those changes doesn't affect the content (information, dates, etc.). The changes I made were those who affected the article's content.

An example (there are many more):

• The original version (before your contributions on Feb 7th) said: "He spoke fluently
  Fine Arts
  ."

• Your contribution on Feb 7th said: "He spoke
  Latin fluently. He authored and published numerous articles for newspapers and specialized magazines in Mexico, South America, Spain, United Kingdom and United States
  "

• Your "undo" version (Feb 8th): "He spoke
  Latin fluently. He authored and published numerous articles for newspapers and specialized magazines in Mexico, South America, Spain, United Kingdom and United States
  "

a) You erased the "Ex Libris" subsection:

"Ex Libris"

"His

Bookplate) was designed by the artist Carlos Stahl (1892–1984); it was catalogued in 1970 by the Mexican academic José Miguel Quintana (1908–1987) in Libros Mexicanos".^[1]

b) You changed the time period of an event mentioned in the Major contributions subsection; inside the paragraph titled: "1941 – Documents of Our Lady of Zapopan..." The event I'm talking about happened during the Cristero War which took place between 1926 to 1929 so you confuse everyone when you say: "They were secreted for safe keeping during Mexico's 19th and 20th century political upheavals". The Cristero War lasted only for three years (1926 to 1929), not during two centuries as you state.

I say such activities (to delete information and to add confusing or wrong paragraphs) obstruct the article's content, and act against the very purpose of an Encyclopaedia that is to share all information as veridic (truthful) as possible and: sharing is not erasing.

In the name of orthography, grammar, or redaction, the contents of any article should never be erased nor any contributor threatened as to declare "a war" on him/she if he/she attempts to recover the information that has been deleted by anyone without fundaments or reasons.

4) One thing is to correct grammar and redaction, I thank you for that and appreciate it!

But you can't change and erase the information at your own will. An article with less information, is less rich and if the information exists and it's deleted that's not encyclopaedic.

5) Among many other structural changes you made, I'd like to know which reasons you took in consideration for moving a subsection "Marriage" in to a section?

In this last question, let me put as example Winston Churchill's biography: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill ], the first section is: "1 Family and early life", the second subsection is: "1.2 Marriage and children"... I wonder why you don't erase information there and change the sections and subsections?

Following Churchill's biography as a model, in the inside the section "Family", of Lancaster-Jones' biography, there must be a subsection "Marriage" (not another new section)...

I can keep on pointing you many reasons about why I structured Lancaster-Jones' biography that way...

Finally: Honestly, I don't understand why you erased and changed information from this article. Please: stop cutting off and therefore truncating the article's information. This kind of actions doesn't enrich the article at all. Advanced thanks!

Kind Regards!

Yours, Hyperspeed2000 (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Why do you restored the Disease-related deaths in Mexico category? I removed it from Lancaster-Jones' biography as I stated in the Edit summary note (22:20, 7 February 2012‎): "inappropriate category removed due to Lancaster-Jones' published biographies (he didn't die because of a disease)". According one of the published biographical notes, Ricardo Lancaster-Jones had some health problems in late 1978; after he recovered, he didn't continued with the PhD degree; and, as you can see, he died until 1983... By the way, I also included a reference about it: ^[2]... But once more, you removed this reference!

Again: Is this your idea of make the article better for posterity?

Sincerely, Hyperspeed2000 (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current