Talk:Green Leaves

Date uncertain?
Some anonymous person says the date of construction is uncertain. The date of construction is either 1838(most commonly known) or 1836 (very uncommonly unknown to be). It is definetly not 1848 or 1849. 1849 is the year that the guy bought the house, whose family still possesses it. And VLB definitely did not say it may have been built in 1848 or 1849. Atterion  Talk •Contribs   17:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. 1812??!! That makes no sense at all.  Atterion  Talk •Contribs   17:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Check the citations that you removed. I think that I have reinstated them now but if I have missed any then you should know where they are because you removed them. Even the NRHP refer to a part of the building that existed before the 1830s. This is why people with a conflict of interest need to take particular care when editing articles with which they have that conflict. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have reverted practically all of your edits to Green Leaves, which you made during the last few minutes. Please will you stop introducing your own point of view into this article. There are cited sources and if you read them then you will see, for example, that Fourniquet did indeed get the place in 1836 (not 1838 as you said). We say what the sources say here, not what we would like them to say or know from our own family etc. I have been through this with your once or twice before recently and cannot understand why you are still persisting in doing this. But, in any event, don't - please. - Sitush (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Protection
Why is Green Leaves full protected, not move protected?  Atterion  Talk •Contribs   13:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * seems to think that we are edit warring. - Sitush (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong name?
Isn't Green Leaves a Japanese band that did the song Yatta, Or am I wrong? Please tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yatza (talk • contribs) 22:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It was. It is hatnoted and linked. The discussion has been spread far and wide but, believe me, the present consensus is that the hatnote suffices for the musical version. You are, of course, welcome to propose reasons why this is incorrect. - Sitush (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)