User talk:LeaveSleaves/Archive 7
 | This 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. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
No, this is YOUR last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia you will be blocked. I find myself having done nothing wrong and falsely accused and warned. --Xx WiC xx 09 (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
If There's a Rocket Tie Me to It
Your redirection to the album-site isn't correct out of my view, when there was already officially published the music-video of that single two weeks ago: If There's a Rocket Tie Me to It. When there is now a watcher (and AOL is no little small online-garden) who wants to know what's got to do with that song and will start a seek on Wikipedia he/she will nothing find about unless your redirection. So, where is the logic? --ElkeK 09:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElkeK (talk • contribs)
Questionnaire
Hello, since you have participated in editing film articles and discussing on their talk pages in the past, do you have any interest in participating in the WikiProject Films questionnaire? Your input would be greatly appreciated! —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for taking the time to do so! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Laura Robson rollback
I've self-reverted -- I had no intention of rolling back that edit, and indeed there was nothing at all wrong with it. I must have done it by accident while looking at the diff. This is actually the second time I've found an unintended rollback in my contribs, and it may be because of the iPhone interface I sometimes use to browse recent changes; it is touch sensitive and I suppose I must have triggered the rollback without meaning to. Anyway, I apologize for the rollback, and I will try to be more careful about that in the future. Thanks for letting me know. Mike Christie (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Scrubs tagging discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)
Your edits are being discussed Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Question. {{Notability}}-tagging these articles makes sense, but it might be helpful in your edit summaries to link the discussion in Talk:List of Scrubs episodes#Notability (or whatever Talk page is relevant to a particular edit) so other editors don't expect discussion on the Talk pages of every single article so edited. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Quick question on Portal picture
I'm wondering about File:Monza aerial photo.jpg. The copyright status seems fine, but with the link dead there is no way to verify that. It also (note right side) appears to have been taken from a book, which would make you think that a copyright may exist. Your view on a continued claim for free use in this case? Cheers, Apterygial 13:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Once the copyright of a work has been released, it is not possible to rescind it. With the image uploaded more than three years ago, it is no surprise that the original link is now dead. I think it is safe to assume that the copyright was verified at the time of upload and consider that the image is now under free-use. The thick line on the right could also be because it is an old photograph, thus possibly taken with a film camera. LeaveSleaves 14:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Tortoiseshell cat editing
Hello,
You decided to erase a link I had posted on this article two years ago on the ground that it would be advertising or promotion of a site.
In fact, that site is a manner of informational and collaborative advertising-free website where more than 1,000 pictures of tortoiseshell cats have been posted by owners coming from more than 40 countries throughout the world. It had brought cat owners the additional information and sharing that Wikipedia is not supposed to provide. Hence I respectfully submit the request to have this link republished.
Thank you.
82.226.215.107 (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Philippe
Tennis summaries
Hi there, I wondered whether you had finished working on your idea for the tennis summaries that you mentioned during the Australian Open. Tennis expert seems to be going around tagging articles with summaries because he believes they are written as fansites. 03md (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Have you checked out Talk:2009 Australian Open? I posted my idea there soon after our last conversation. LeaveSleaves 13:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- I like your idea - I have made a start on this sort of approach on 2009 SA Tennis Open article, a tournament that has just finished. Would you be interested in expanding old grand slam articles because at the moment they list only the winners with no other details - this structure could work for them as well because you don not need to know the day something happened. Thanks. 03md (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- As you can read at the top of this page, my editing time has reduced considerably and would probably reduce further until I bounce back completely. Nevertheless, just let me know from time to time the articles you are working on and I'd drop in there to help in the best way possible. I also like the idea of starting with older articles first instead of recent tournaments. That way we wouldn't have to fret over people arguing about the new structure and we could develop the articles in peace and find out if this new idea is any good to promote those articles. LeaveSleaves 15:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- I like your idea - I have made a start on this sort of approach on 2009 SA Tennis Open article, a tournament that has just finished. Would you be interested in expanding old grand slam articles because at the moment they list only the winners with no other details - this structure could work for them as well because you don not need to know the day something happened. Thanks. 03md (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have made a start on the 1967 Wimbledon article but could you also have a look at this review I have done of 2009 Pattaya Women's Open using the suggested structure - feel free to make any changes. Thanks. 03md (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Whoa, 1967! When you said old tournaments I though you meant early 1990's or something. But you really meant old. Anyways, how do you plan to collect sources for that event? Because that would be the toughest part of it. I'll try and drop in at '09 Pattaya to help you. LeaveSleaves 20:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, I was intending to do 1990s events but was just doing a tidy-ups of some of the much older pages. Also, User:Tennis expert is going around slapping "fansite" tags on all attempts to write tournament summaries - he is the sort of user that we need to watch out for. He is also restructuring the standard lead section and obviously preferring less information on the page. 03md (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
what was that about?
Bold textit said... that i editted something that i didnt. how do i change that?? or at least figure out how to see what i did? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.41.145.247 (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for dealing with the vandalism on my user page... I seem to be attracting crazies at the moment! Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi
yo wubu2? going well? at home atm bit bord relly lol. hbu? doin much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.231.68 (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Woddup
Great to see you back on my watchlist. You only missed a few highly pointless discussions. Apterygial 08:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I missed all the fun. Hopefully we'll have a few more such discussions to enjoy. By the way, have you planned anything for like MII for 2009 season? LeaveSleaves 12:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps. My priority at the moment is 2008, and since I've still got a few articles left to write for that, I won't be looking at the 2009 articles for a while (I don't even know if it'd be a good idea to start on the 2009 articles until the season is over anyway). I'll probably have a bit of F1 fatigue after this MII anyway. I guess the best thing about writing about 2009 F1 is that you don't have to look at the cars (have you seen the new Renault? Ugh). Apterygial 12:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
External links
What is there to discuss? It's already the standard expectation on here. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- While I understand the point you are trying to make, I don't think it is appropriate to phrase it as "should not be added as plain external links". Moreover I don't think there would be unanimous support to addition of such statement, even if it is paraphrased. I'd suggest opening a thread on the talk page and see what other editors think about it. LeaveSleaves 18:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- The statement in question is not saying that we can't link to such interviews at all — but such links belong under the "References" section as footnotes for specific statements in the article, not under the "External links" section. The entire rest of WP:EL already clarifies that only a bare minimum of outbound links should actually be listed directly under "External links". And a user doesn't require permission to update policy-as-written to conform to policy-as-practiced, when the written document isn't specific enough about how the policy is already used. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- As I said above and at WT:EL, certain portions of that sentence concern me. Let us see what other editors feel about it. And of course nobody needs to seek permission to edit the guideline. But when you are concerned with a sensitive and prevalent guideline, it makes good sense to discuss the changes/addition unless they are purely clerical or formatting related. LeaveSleaves 21:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- The statement in question is not saying that we can't link to such interviews at all — but such links belong under the "References" section as footnotes for specific statements in the article, not under the "External links" section. The entire rest of WP:EL already clarifies that only a bare minimum of outbound links should actually be listed directly under "External links". And a user doesn't require permission to update policy-as-written to conform to policy-as-practiced, when the written document isn't specific enough about how the policy is already used. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
What's your problem?
When I use the tool I only ever use it when there is no need for an explanation which I would give if I undid it, I will conceive though that I know what it's use is but it's not like I'm using it to harm anyone. I know you seem to dislike me but I won't go into it and I know I over-react sometimes but a warning is only needed if I'm abusing a tool in a negative manner. Chubbennaitor 16:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid your interpretation of the rollback feature is flawed. The feature is to be used when the edits are obviously nonproductive, such as vandalism or massive unexplained removal of content. In case of all other reversion, it is only natural to give explanation for the reversion so that the editor reverted knows what s/he did wrong. And my messages to you have nothing to do with me liking or disliking you. I'm just trying to help you understand improper usage of the tool. If you feel I shouldn't message you in the matter any further, just say so. I would just hate to see your tool being taken away for such incorrect usage. LeaveSleaves 17:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- You've treated everything I've proposed differently. Anyway, I don't want to go into it as I'm sure we can co-operate. Forget I brought it up. Chubbennaitor 22:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I try to be extremely objective while expressing my opinions on various issues and to my knowledge I've never supported, opposed or criticised a proposal based on who proposed it. Like I said above, I had nothing but good intentions in bringing this rollback issue in front of you. LeaveSleaves 04:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- You've treated everything I've proposed differently. Anyway, I don't want to go into it as I'm sure we can co-operate. Forget I brought it up. Chubbennaitor 22:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
2009 Formula One season
I noticed your proposal for the highlighting of the wins column in the points table. I have looked into it, and using the 2008 table, I came up with this:
Regards. Cs-wolves(talk) 18:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Pretty much what I had in mind except I was thinking about colouring for entire column, like with the grey one you used for borders here. I think you should post this on the talk page there and see what others think of it. LeaveSleaves 18:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Something like this:
We should discuss the colour though. LeaveSleaves 19:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, that looks pretty good to me. I need to go get some food, so could you put the proposal on the talk page? Cheers. Cs-wolves(talk) 19:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
retiring
By. i've just had enough. Chubbennaitor 21:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Reminder about tennis summaries
Hi, could you now have a go at some of the tennis summaries (see my last post on your page) now that you have resumed editing. 03md (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Rahul Gandhi's religion
Hi I happened to visit the article on Rahul Gandhi, and was quite surprised to see his religion mentioned as Christianity. Curious to know the source, I looked for a reference. There was a link below, which didnt open. I even did a google search, and could find nothing. I notice user YellowMonkey seems to be reverting this repeatedly. I saw your post in the discussion tab. Personally, I am quite shocked at the kind of logic being provided for him being Christian. But what surprises me more, is the determination to prove it thus. It's not something that needs to be established, through illogical inference. especially something that doesnt become a fact by indirect inferences.
I write this to bring to your notice, as I believe in working toward improving articles, to encyclopedic standards. And clearly stating that he is a Christian (without any reference) goes against this.
I have written my opinion on the discussion tab. I expect anyone who disputes it to discuss it there. I request your participation.
ThanksAJ-India (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Tennis reply
While you have not been as active I have been working on a variety of topics, but tennis related I've created a number of templates for the various WCT and Grand Prix tennis circuit seasons if you could check the accuracy of those. However it would be good if you could apply your ideas on tennis summaries to some of the recent tournaments e.g. 2009 BNP Paribas Open which does not have a lot on it. Remember to add references from BBC, ATP etc. Thanks. 03md (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Are you still going to be working on the tennis articles? Great work with the F1 pages by the way.
I have been working hard on individual year templates for the ATP Tour (e.g. Template:1990 ATP Tour, Grand Prix tennis circuit (e.g. Template:1985 Nabisco Grand Prix and WCT circuit (e.g. Template:1973 World Championship Tennis circuit as well as some WTA templates. The majority of the links on them should be accurate but I was wondering if someone with tennis knowledge check through the completed templates. Some pre-ATP era tournaments are simply recorded as "[Place name] Open" and I have also been unable to find some of the tournament sponsor names, such as the name of the San Francisco tournament known as the SAP Open. They all need to be recorded with the sponsor name if applicable. Thanks - respond here or on my talkpage. 03md 09:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see the importance of including sponsor's name in article name. In any case, most tournaments change sponsors and I feel a more general naming convention for articles is actually better. As for working on tennis articles, I'm currently doing some gnome work on bio-articles and still haven't decided on which tournament article to work on to test the new format. LeaveSleaves 15:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Singapore
How are you going with 2008 Singapore Grand Prix? I realised the other day that when that reaches GA or FA the right column of the table will be 'finished' (Belgium will go to FAC after a rewrite). Apterygial 01:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. I'm even embarrassed you have to ask me about this. But the hiatus has thrown me out of whack and I'm trying to great a grip of editing again. I'll get back to it immediately and hopefully give you some positive news soon enough. LeaveSleaves 01:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome
I didn't think you'd have a problem with the reversion. I'm overly cautious in messing with other's user talk, but sometimes the edit is too blatantly awful. If you haven't already had an opportunity to revert edits on my page, I'm sure the time will come eventually. :) Tiderolls 14:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK
Sorry for getting so excited at Malaysia's entry at DYK, I just love writing hooks. :) Apterygial 12:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- No problem whatsoever. Incidentally that was my first try anyway. LeaveSleaves 12:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK for 2009 Malaysian Grand Prix
|
On 10 April, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2009 Malaysian Grand Prix, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Shubinator (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Infobox fixes
Hi LeaveSleaves, I saw your comment at The Rambling Man's talk page. I'm a member of the Tennis Project and wouldn't mind helping with the infobox fixes. Is it as simple as adding the parameter to any bio infobox which doesn't have it? Do you have a system so we don't duplicate efforts? Maedin\talk 13:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, we need to make sure that the parameter exists wherever the infobox contains Grand Slam doubles results. As for the system, at the moment I'm going through the draw of 2009 Australian Open, considering only the participating players would have such results in the infobox. I guess you could pick up another grand slam draw and go through the players one by one. I'd also like to hear additional ideas on how we can add these fixes as fast as possible. LeaveSleaves 14:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I've only ever done manual edits and am absolutely clueless as to how to run bots. If you think the job is a bit too much to do manually, I have some ideas on people/places who could help with scripts. Are you interested in waiting for someone to write a script? Maedin\talk 14:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- We (me and The Rambling Man) considered using a bot or AWB for the job. But the problem in either case is that you'd need a list of articles that need this parameter. For that you'll have to check manually if the infobox has any grand slam doubles results. Well, if you are going to do the article any way, why not add it yourself? LeaveSleaves 14:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Point taken. I'll work bottom up, with historic female players. That means it will probably be a long time before we step on each other's toes. Maedin\talk 14:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- We (me and The Rambling Man) considered using a bot or AWB for the job. But the problem in either case is that you'd need a list of articles that need this parameter. For that you'll have to check manually if the infobox has any grand slam doubles results. Well, if you are going to do the article any way, why not add it yourself? LeaveSleaves 14:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I've only ever done manual edits and am absolutely clueless as to how to run bots. If you think the job is a bit too much to do manually, I have some ideas on people/places who could help with scripts. Are you interested in waiting for someone to write a script? Maedin\talk 14:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's done me in for the night. I've done French, US, and Wimbledon females, and working on 2006 for the Australian Open. The pickings get slim in the earlier years (pre-2000) because we don't have the draw articles, but the articles for those players mostly don't have infoboxes. Thanks for letting me jump in and assist you, :-) Maedin\talk 22:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
3RR
Thank you for your warning - but I'd like to point out that I didn't break the rule. I would also like to point out that none of the reverts were done with mallicousness in mind, one in particular being done due to tennis expert's inability or unwillingness to read the talk page before editing. As you are seemingly knowledgeable in this area you may be able to: is the rule still broken when the edits were constructive? Alan16 talk 08:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- There are very specific exceptions to violation of 3RR and as you can gather your case wasn't among them. And frankly, multiple reverts and edit warring would never be considered constructive. Even if you are on the right side or wrong side. And remember, no matter how other editors react, you should try and remain positive about your editing. LeaveSleaves 12:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The author (Transambytrial (talk · contribs)) of Borderwars requested a good faith deletion of the page by replacing the page with {{db-author}}. As the author of the only significant content on the page (all other page edits were deletion or cleanup related), I would think his request should be honored rather than reverted as vandalism. Can you review this matter? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I realized his request after I reverted him the first time. I was about to undo my revert, but the user re-requested deletion, so I didn't bother about it. As for the speedy request, I guess it would declined because the article asserts notability. Would probably won't last AFD though. By the way, have considered asking the author to PROD it rather than speedy it? LeaveSleaves 18:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism
How about looking at what I changed and reading the reasoning in my edit summary, and perhaps looking at my other contributions before accusing me of vandalism? Over The Desk (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Please Y'Self
You said in the Please Y'Self AFD page that it doesn't in any way pass WP:BAND. Please read this snippet.
1.Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.
2. Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.[note 4]
3. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
4.Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3]
5. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network
6. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.)
A. They have had many reviews published about them in national newspapers, posters, etc.
B. The Falkland Islands aren't classed as part of the East Midlands.
C. They were nominated for many major awards in being the pioneers of skiffle.
D. The newspaper coverage has gone as far as Norwich once, but I don't know when :)
E. John Peel, 1984, set of Radio 1.
F. Shortest Show On Earth (often)-BBC Two, 1981-1990.
I hope this satisfies that yes it does not fail in any way because I have found 6 of 12. Googling it wouldn't help, because which ever way you look at it, its just another search engine. You have to have reliable sources (and I do in the form of my musician in residence and guitarist and expressive arts teacher, Mr Gill (or John Gill as the article stated))and he showed the coverage which unfortunately I was unable to get hold of. Thanks. [[Andrew RACK]] (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Could you specify what is this about? I don't recall commenting any AfD in off late. LeaveSleaves 18:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Okay found it. If you feel that the band meets the necessary criteria, and you have resources proving that, please go ahead and create the article accordingly. It should be understandable that the resources that I have during an AfD are limited (mostly to search engines, book searches etc.). Please do not see an oppose made once to be eternal. The article at that time did not exhibit the necessary notability. LeaveSleaves 18:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
hi
just wanted to say hi i cant wait now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.6.215 (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
| Thank you kindly for reverting this vandalism to my user page. I really appreciate it! —Archon Magnus(Talk | Home) 02:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC) |
DYK for 2009 Chinese Grand Prix
|
|
On April 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chinese Grand Prix, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
∗ \ / (⁂) 12:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my editor review page. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 17:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank You Very Much
Thank you for reverting the Vandalism on my page.--Skater (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2009 (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. |