User talk:Paul A/2010-2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Paul A. 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.

Original research

I don't know if it's "original research". I didn't open up any beakers and pour down any sulfur. I compared the 1844 claim for the premiere of the trio in Ebel's book (here) to the fact that a trio of hers was claimed to be premiered in The Musical World 1842 volume that I referred to in the stub. Either it's a different trio (possible- both are presently lost, but she might have written two), or the 1844 "premiere" that Ebel is referring to is a 2nd performance of a work given an earlier performance in 1842 (also possible), or - there are a number of other possibilities. I don't know. Any suggestions for how to put it to avoid the appearance of or. res.? Admittedly it's not that important at first, and should be done in a more "worklist"-y fashion later in the article in a better organized manner in anycase. Schissel | Sound the Note! 03:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Kray, miy ridniy kray

Hi, I noticed you improved the article about Nikolay Mozgovoy. Could you please have a look at this article Kray, miy ridniy kray, including its talk page, and eventually indicate what's there to be done to improve it. Thank you very much indeed.Rubikonchik (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted redirects

Why did you delete The Canvern Club and Template:DEFEAULTSORT? Redirects aid in navigation. I frequently make typos such as those and its irritating when you can't find what you're looking for until you realise you've made a spelling mistake. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy: Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created. It's more useful to find and fix the typo. —Paul A (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Not if you make the typo in the search bar. But, oh well, Wikipedia policy has spoken. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Franco Lucchini

Hi Paul, thanks for Your contribut to the new article about Lucchini, YOU are right... there were no other Franco Lucchini it looked impossible to me to write a new article with this name...

regards --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

John Wilson Orchestra - thanks

Thanks for removing the biographical information about John Wilson (conductor). It had occurred to me last night that this belonged in the biographical article. In creating it yesterday, I was not aware of an article on John Wilson himself. It's a common name and there is a lengthy disambiguation page on "John Wilson."

Having put in alot of research, writing and editing, it is clear that the John Wilson Orchestra is unique, acclaimed and innovative and merits its own article.

So thanks for recognising this in sharpening the focus. FClef (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

thank-you

for mopping up after me at Category:Stone carvers. Someone else had created it but it was showing up in red so I just did a smash and grab fix on it and how you've made it right. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This barnstar is given to recognize exceptional WikiGnomes, those tireless contributors who quietly fix up categories, spelling, punctuation, and formatting problems. Thank you for your hard work! Tarastar42 (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

re Vasily Engelhardt

Re moving the birth/death locations out of the opening sentence, my interpretation of MOS:DOB is that this is not required, although apparently it used to be. I opened a request for clarification on this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#So what IS the deal with birth/death locations in the opening? 05:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

About sanctimommy

hi, I had created a page about what was the first among the top 10 new words of 2010 ,"sanctimommy". In order to give it a perspective and contextual reference ,I had pointed out the behavioral characteristics of a fictitious mom potrayed in the UK TV comedy series "Coupling" . You have edited the same saying that nobody used the word , But how is one to use the word when it is not yet in circulation.

Kindly revert the edit so that readers may be able to relate to the word's idea. Alternatively , provide one which you may think is more befitting the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimesmonster (talk • contribs) 06:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my edit. Speculating about situations where the word might have been used if it had been invented yet is outside the scope of Wikipedia. If there is such a thing as an established authority on the subject, who has written somewhere about hypothetical cases where the word might be used, you could point to that. Even better, if you can point to actual examples of the word actually being used. —Paul A (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Glen Goodall

It would be appreciated if you would fix a wrong Category, and not just delete it. By removing the category without fixing it you are just creating extra work for others who are trying to improve articles by doing accurate category sorting. Dolovis (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I almost always do fix a wrong category, but this depends on me knowing enough about the subject, or being able to determine from the article, which is the correct category. In the case of Glen Goodall, I don't know the subject, and the article was literally no help. (As in, it doesn't mention San Diego Gulls at all.) —Paul A (talk) 07:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If you do not know enough about the subject to make a constructive edit, then why are you editing the article? Dolovis (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I was working through a list of articles with incorrect category tags.

It seems to me, anyway, that a properly-written article should contain enough information to allow anybody who reads it to tag it appropriately. I draw your attention again to the fact that the article doesn't mention San Diego Gulls at all. If it's not important enough to mention in the article, why is it important enough to have a category tag? —Paul A (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

tess

Paul, your work on our artists page was very appreciated and stellar. Do you think we have met enough guidelines for this to be a 'notary' individual? Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stewart h (talk • contribs) 22:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Audio theatre an article to audio dramas

Please if you have time and you know anything to it (I have seen that you have made edits in the article area which owns relations on it) , please look on the article Audio theatre, somebody placed a erase discussion on it. after we have had a merge discussion. It would be interesting what you would say to the merge and the delete discussion. And possibly it could help to contact other people that they should help also. )-: Merry Xmas --Soenke Rahn (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)