User:DavidLeighEllis/TalkPageArchiveThree

A barnstar for you!

 * Much appreciated. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Things
I see you took down the police image thing. Thanks for that. Sorry for getting heated...look...I don't doubt that you are well intentioned and here to help, but I'm slightly embittered to be honest at wiki, not wishing to excuse my hot headness, but I've been baited and blocked not a few times before, and thought that what was happening here. Not so as it turned out. But I lashed out, inegantly. Not an excuse, but there you go. Also I was swearing at the age of 2, and work in an enviroment where its...expected... again not an excuse, its just normal to me. Incidently and ironically, I mostly work here on 15-16th century christian art, with a bent towards iconography. I'm not a beliver myself, but as a chatholic, steeped in it, and facinated by the imagery, respectful, to an extent, toward the tradition. Look, all I'm saying is, when looking at talk pages, dig a bit more, but that said, you didnt deserve the reaction you got. To your great credit you kept your cool. Ceoil (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for working to resolve this situation amicably. For my part, I will investigate similar situations more carefully before pressing the rollback button. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sound like a plan to me David. I will also work on not being so rash. No hard feeling from here, certainly, and best of luck defending the wiki. Its a never ending, necessary, task! Ceoil (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Strangesad
You may be interested in this: WP:ANI.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, I am more interested in the criteria by which you determined who to contact regarding the AN/I thread... DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I deeply apologize. I shall notify all who have opposed the previous ban (and only those) immediately.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

AfD !voting
I've noticed a pattern in your AfD voting, it appears you do not really participate in discussion but vote "keep as above". Improving your arguments would be more worthwhile to discussions. ,, , , ,. LibStar (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * some more, . LibStar (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "per above" is shorthand for “I have read the discussion above, and concur with the reasons offered for the retention of the article.” However, I can summarize the discussions to which I am referring, should it prove necessary for my comments to be considered in AFD closures. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * do you really read the AfDs and the article being nominated. given your pattern of voting, that is difficult to say. there is no evidence of that. good AfD votes make proper contributions to discussions not simply turn up and vote in 2 seconds. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have fixed all of my comments in the AFDs noted above, using strikethrough text on the initial comments where appropriate. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

thank you for revising. please keep in mind for future. LibStar (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/World Leaders
I undid your inappropriate WP:NAC closure as there isn't any established consensus yet between a keep and a merge and probably needs relisting. NAC is only used for cases in which there is obvious consensus to keep/merge/redirect with no objections. Thanks Secret account 02:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Note my mistake in forgetting to re-add the AFD template to the article. Also, I added WP:REVIEWER to your userrights as you are clearly doing administrative and cleanup work and that tool is essential and makes your job much easier (reviewing pending changes, avoiding unnecessary bot messages like that Snotbot I removed, and so forth). I hope you don't mind. Thanks Secret account 03:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will be more careful with non-admin closures in the future. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Distilled Water - Health section deletion
Hi David, Thanks for your message. In the health section of the distilled water wikipedia page there is some bias because it states there are concerns regarding drinking stilled water because of its lack of minerals however it doesn't state what other experts say (and the scientific fact), which is 95% or more of all minerals consumed by humans comes from food sources, not water, therefore the claimed risk of not getting enough nutrients in a human body by drinking distilled water is questionable. Putting one point of view and not the other, I hope you agree, is biased.

I tried several times to put a one sentence explanation about the source of the minerals, and referred back to one of the inner pages in the Distilled Water Association website (Distilledwaterassociation.org), but several times my edits were rejected, even after explaining what changes I had made. Out of frustration, I decided to remove the one sentence that talks about the lack of minerals to, indirectly, remove the bias. Again, didn't work.

Maybe I need a few pointers on how to make honest edits without being blamed of vandalizing the website.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.94.45 (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted one of your edits to distilled water because it removed content without specifying why in the edit summary. I have no comment regarding any content dispute in that article, or why other editors reverted you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

revert on Rick Norwood talk page
While I appreciate the thought, there is no need to revert spam on my talk page. I would rather handle it myself, unless there is buried malware of something else I don't know about. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Nominations that need Closings
I noticed you closed out the Vivisimo nomination. There is another one, essentially nominated by the same guy for deletion (who has a history of overzealous deleting), that has reached a keep consensus here and needs closing, if you have the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gigablast_(2nd_nomination) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki12rt (talk • contribs) 23:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a 99% probability that an administrator will close that discussion as "keep". However, the discussion is too controversial to be ripe for non-administrative closure. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited First-wave feminism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Married Women’s Property Act (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The link to a disambiguation page was correct. The relevant text in the article is "England: The Married Women’s Property Act was passed in 1870 and expanded in 1874 and 1882, giving English women control over their own earnings and property." A triune reference to the acts of 1870, 1874, and 1882 properly refers to the disambiguation page which lists each of them. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Please share your opinion on Samuel Westrop
Hi. I happened to see your vote on an article that was nominated for deletion, just one section below another entry which I'm currently opposing. So I randomly decided to kindly ask you and the other two users - only if you want of course - to take a quick look this article. Then, I'd really appreciate it if you could vote either for(delete) or against(keep) its deletion proposal, because I'm convinced that more views are needed there and think yours can be trusted. Thanks in advance, Yambaram (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI
If you're interested there is a page specifically for testing user warnings and such at User talk:Sandbox for user warnings. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

L'Origine du monde
Hi there, agree with Liz who reverted your blanking of this page and the associated talk page. It's not a hard and fast rule that indef blocked user pages are blanked - in fact I find it helpful to be able to see them so I can understand why they might have been blocked. And this particular page has been the subject of a speedy Keep decision so it's even less appropriate to blank it, I think. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  21:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Halloween
Thanks for undoing that mess. You may also want to undo the random comment that says "It is also known as 'All Saints Day'". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Halloween&diff=575597590&oldid=575548177 It seems out of place there :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maodhóg (talk • contribs) 16:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

User warning templates
I noticed that you changed the image used for level 2 templates, but the shade of red used seems quite a bit too bright to me. Could you consider fixing this? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Would changing the images to File:Information orange.svg work? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - and that actually makes more sense given the warning level. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, you missed some templates last time. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

2011 tel aviv nightclub
David, ref this article see WP:NONENG. Non English sources should not be used in Wikapedia, therefore I have reverted to the NPOV word militant until English sources are provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.85.127 (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * English language WP:RS like and  clearly describe the event as a "terrorist" attack. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Revert to revision $1 dated $2 by $3 using popups?
Something funny going on with the edit summary in this one. Is WP:NAVPOPS having trouble? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There's clearly something wrong with popups, but I'm not sure what. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)