User talk:Editor437

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

PS on the above logic should http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RIGHT

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)[reply]