User:Leonard^Bloom/Archive5

James Dannaldson
Jacaré is now public domain. The copyright was never renewed. You can verify this fact here. I have changed the tags. Schmausschmaus (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you very much for the notification. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Re. RfA
Hi, I'm really sorry that your first RFA didn't work out, if its any consolation my first didn't work out either:). Great nomination statement, loved the allusions to that birthday speech. It was a real pity that your recent CSD stuff torpedoed things and stopped people like me from being able to support at this time. You might want to read User:WereSpielChequers, hope to see you at RFA again in the Autumn.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  08:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Leonard, I wanted to extend my apologies as well. I too very much enjoyed your nomination statement and was extremely surprised to see you getting opposed for it so vehemently. The RfA crowd can be temperamental and unpredictable, and it's a shame that you had to fall victim to it. Please keep up the great work, and I hope to see you at RfA again soon. Best, Glass  Cobra  14:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for the wonderful support. WSC: thank you for compliments on the nomination piece, as well as the nice thoughts on deletion. GlassCobra: I do hope to return to RfA soon, and I'm glad I'm doing enough for my work to be called "great". Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 06:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

NPP
I see someone's been busy with NPP tonight, eh? (proof). Thanks- I missed my standard talkpage projects. tedder (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, wait, did I do that? That was a complete accident. Thanks for notifying me, I'll revert at once. :P Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, absolutely not a complaint! It was the right thing to do. tedder (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you missed my point. I was kidding; sorry if that wasn't clear. I'm just lurking around, NPP'ing. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Aha, okay. We're on the same page. Darn, so much for a good edit war, eh? :-) (smiley, just in case) tedder (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Aww... I could use a good ban. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Re. Leslie Motor Car company
Leonard, why remove the ISBN number? I thought this would help people who wanted to look up this car company. Leslie Motor Car company Also the Marques 5000 List is part of this book and all references begin on page 231, after which all pages are not numbered until page 373. Why i do not know. It is most likely because of the size of this Reference book. Sincerely, ;;;; Randall O
 * Sorry about that. I have replaced the ISBN; formatting error kept it from showing up.
 * As for the issue of the book title and such, I suggest you add it yourself. I was a bit confused by the initial reference that I formatted, and you obviously know it better than I. The editing syntax should be relatively simple, just take a few seconds to look over how it's laid out and you'll be fine. If you need help, you can always contact me here. Thanks for the notice, and happy editing. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 06:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU LEONARD, If you are any one else needs any information from this Reference book just ask. Sincerely, ;;;; Randall O


 * Not a problem, and that's a kind offer. I suggest you sign your signatures with the four tildes; it makes conversations much easier. Thanks. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 06:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Leonard, the reason i,am not signing correctly, is because i have a French Canadian keyboard and the tildes show up wrong. I had to replace my old laptop keyboard with a new French Canadian keyboard. I had an English keyboard earlier, but it went out and so i had to settle for this one. Sincerely, ;;;; Randall O


 * Alright. Whatever works I suppose. Have a nice evening; I'm off to sleep. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 07:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Question
Are you a member of Wikiproject Biography? -t'shaél chat 07:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Why? Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 07:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I was going to pester you to reassess an article for me. Thanks anyway. Best, t'shaél chat 07:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I usually assess articles after reading their assessment guide a bit. Unless that's a cardinal sin (if it is, I'm already sorry :P), I'm sure you could do it yourself.
 * Well, I would, but it's bad prose to assess an article that you have extensively edited. :) -t'shaél chat 07:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well, I usually assess stuff when I'm just passing by, either random article or NPP. I'd be happy to assess it for you. Most of my assessments have been for that project, so I have some experience. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 07:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you wouldn't mind, I would appreciate it. This article is currently rated "Start" class, however that rating is 2 years old, and I've reworked it and think that it deserves a reassessment. Either way, I'd like your opinion on it. Thanks again, :) t'shaél chat 07:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

←Thanks, Leonard, I appreciate you taking the time to do this. Any suggestions on improvements that I can make? -t'shaél chat 07:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You caught me in the middle of already reviewing it.
 * Well, if a C.5 existed, I'd give it to you, but sadly it doesn't, and with these sort of things, you need to round down. My "official" review or thought-process is kind of short, so feel free to ask for more.
 * Needs a longer intro.
 * If more information is available to you, I'd suggest expanding upon the different periods of her career. Maybe a separate section for the 80s, 90s, etc. This will help add depth to the article, one of the characteristics of a B class.
 * An image would be nice.
 * Format the references. I could do this tomorrow, if you want, but as you may observe one thread up, I was gonna hit the hay when you left a message.
 * That's basically it. By the way, if you want to see what I reviewed it with, this is the place. Like I said, if you have any more questions: ask. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 07:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, my apologies for keeping you up. Thank you for assessing this for me and I will incorporate your suggestions ASAP. Happy editing! -t'shaél chat 07:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize, it was my pleasure. See ya' around. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 07:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Thanks
This is completely unprecedented, but thank you for uploading the picture you see at the right. I used to live around this area years ago, and I haven't seen many pictures of the areas since I was a young child. It was nice to see Etna not look so angry and erupt-y for once. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 08:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I took it last January (I adore Sicily and have been often). I've got some more I took on a wonderful cross country drive from Taormina to Capo Orlando (via Randazzo), with the Etna national park on your left for about half the way. Really wild unspoiled countryside with raptors circling overhead. Very beautiful indeed.  Roger Davies  talk 13:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

John Diamond page
Hi, I added a comment on the John Diamond page before I saw I had a message from you. So apologies for that (and also if it sounds a bit miffed - it's one of those days!). If the updated version I have entered still seems to you to have some issues, please could you suggest how to ameliorate that? Thanks. AKDiamond (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I saw, the content wasn't a problem. However, I welcomed you with a notice a possible conflict of interest because your name is AKDiamond, editing on the John Diamond article. If you have some connection with the subject article, I strongly suggest you distance yourself from the article to prevent a point of view or bias from cropping up. If not, then my apologies. Happy editing! Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha! Actually, I'm a poker player, and the name is my signature hand - the Ace and King of Diamonds! A poor choice for a username in retrospect. I saw that George Goodheart and Applied Kinesiology were up already, so I thought I should add Dr. Diamond (and possibly Behavioral Kinesiology in the future) - however all of the info I've gathered so far is from the same reference (the one I currently have on the page). Should I be tagging all the paragraphs and putting Ibid in the refs? Basically, what else is needed to get those "issues" removed? Thanks for your time. AKDiamond (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a poor choice. It's original, and it was my mistake anyhow. As for the article issues, I'll list them out, and then give a manner in which they can be remedied.
 * Missing citations or footnotes: This is actually invalid as it stands, so I'll remove it. The one reference you have is cited in the article properly, but that leads us to point number two...
 * Questionable notability: Is Dr. John Diamond notable? You can determine this by using the guidelines Wikipedia has set up for the notability of people, or, as the shortcut is called, WP:BIO. To determine whether or not he is notable, we are looking for reliable sources (WP:RS) that prove his notability. Sources like news articles, or reports in journals. Not self-published sites (like the one you have as a reference; that will work for now, but third-party, neutral sources are necessary), or blogs (unless the blog themselves are notable), etc. Hope that makes sense.
 * Bias/COI: Not a problem, and I've removed them.
 * If you have any questions, just ask. You know where to find me. :P Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. How's the notability looking now? AKDiamond (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. The article just needs some expansion, but I've removed the notability tag. Happy editing. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 18:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for reverting the vandalism on my talk page --Until It Sleeps Wake me 13:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 18:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Why
Did you revert my edit? I suggest you look at the page for yourself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.131.220 (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That was my mistake. I pressed the wrong button, but I quickly reverted my edit, and yours has been restored. My apologies. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 21:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine. :) I really should dig out my old account for Wikipedia... --81.151.131.220 (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Tern
Thanks for your comment on the tern. I have replied here. • Rabo³  • 02:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A request for your rating
Leonard:

I recently noticed that you had rated an article of mine, on theatre director Carlos Gandolfo. If you'd like, could you please look at Man Facing Southeast? I had created that article in January and, at the time, it received a "stub" rating - when the article probably deserved better.

Thank you for the trouble, and please let me know if I can help you with anything in the future.

Sincerely, Sherlock4000 (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. I've rated the article, and fixed a minor problem. Let me know if you need anything else assessed in the future, and you might wanna check the assessment guides on relevant wikiprojects. Thanks and happy editing, Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Leonard:


 * Thank you!


 * Sherlock4000 (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Permission for My Image
OK. I sent the permission e-mail to the requested address at permission-commons@wikimedia.org. I'm still trying to figure out how to add the additional information to the image description. This is all new to me, but I will learn it before the image is deleted.

File:MM_Logo_PNG.png

Bill (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the deletion notice, so the image won't be deleted. I have also placed a description template on the file page, so feel free to fill that in as necessary. Thanks, and happy editing. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Never! Get your own.


 * Heh, so someone noticed my little NFP binge. Thanks for the recognition, and enjoy your evening. Happy editing. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Edit conflicts...
That's revenge for tagging images at the upload log. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 00:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

SCH Sarajevo
Hi Leonard^Bloom. Don't know if you're interested but I seem to have found a nest of non-free images in a gallery on SCH Sarajevo, which fails the last paragraph of WP:IG. I was going to put those images up for deletion but seeing how you are an editor (or admin hopeful - per this) who is looking to work with images, perhaps you may want to get some experience in this aspect of the project. Have fun! -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 02:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Y'know, I remember seeing these being uploaded and being slightly confused by the extremely small size, but that's all the thought I gave to it. Thanks for the notice; we all know how much I love to up my brag-list. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And they're up. Thanks for the notice, and I hope you cross paths with you in the future. (Unrelated note: feel free to call me Leonard, Leo, etc. Leonard^Bloom seems so... clunky. You wouldn't address someone by their full name all the time would you? :P ) Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice. Mkay - Leo it is.  Cheers,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 02:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Miss Vietnam 2008.jpg
For images like that, there's not really much point with the whole "may have the wrong tag" thing- just throw it to PUI and remove it from the article. Alternatively, if it's really blatant, especially if the uploader has many other blatant copyvios, just delete it yourself and leave the user a warning. J Milburn (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * >_< I'm just now seeing this. I don't know how that happened it, sorry. Also, thanks for the advice. That was my first real experience with images tagged incorrectly in that manner, so the advice is really useful. And, by the way, I can't "delete it [myself]"; not an admin. :P Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 21:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry! Assumed you were. Speedy deletion notices work for individual obvious copyvios- for larger scale stuff, feel free to ping me on my talk page and I'll look into it. J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't be sorry, I'm flattered. Always nice to know people assume I do more work than I actually do. :P If something like that happens again, I'll just tag as a copyvio or contact you. Thanks for the advice. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments!
Hi Leonard, Thanks for your informative comments regarding the SCH images (7/15/09). I'm not sure we'll go through the effort of the individual album pages for now, we'll probably revert back to a text discography, but whatever we do - thanks for your thoughtfulness and if we have additional questions, we'll definitely ask. There really isn't any commercial value for these images - especially as thumbs which are useless except for reproduction - but I better understand the basic rationale why you have such guidelines in place. Take care and I'll let you know if more questions arise. --stephanie krueger (Stephkru) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephkru (talk • contribs) 14:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Singing fools image issue
I sent an email to info@wikipedia.com earlier today and they responded asking for my express authorization to use the image which I provided by reply email. Does this resolve the issue or do I have to take other steps? Chelseamorning2006 (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The image is fine, and thank you for uploading it to Wikipedia. The issue has been resolved. Happy editing, Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 21:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.Chelseamorning2006 (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Never a problem, and if you need anything, ask. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 21:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then. One last query. Will the warning tag "this image is a candidate for speedy deletion and may be deleted by July 23..." be removed at some point or do I do it? Chelseamorning2006 (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have already removed, but in the future, if a case like this presents itself, be bold and go for it yourself. Thanks for asking. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 21:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

SCH - we are making album pages
Hi Leo, just to let you know we decided to make album pages for everything, have let everyone know on the delete page. It's going well so far and we will continue to build tomorrow. Take care and have a good night, --stephanie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephkru (talk • contribs) 22:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw one of the pages through the New page log, and it looked good. I'll mention it on the FfD. Thanks for telling me. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 23:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Yet again
No problem - I suggested you nom the files for deletion and some issues arose - it wouldn't be right for me not to say anything! Anyways, glad to see everything worked out. Cheers,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 17:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
For your help on Committee to End Pay Toilets in America! In particular, the move, I realized I screwed up the caps only today, when I linked the name as it should be. :/ The other stuff is great, I don't know anything about cats in particular. One quibble tho, I'm not sure that a pic of a toilet in France is a good illustration for this article. Are you really committed to that pic? Not that I have a better one... Eaglizard (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you wanna remove it, go for it. I just thought it would be best for the reader to at least see a pay toilet; I couldn't any picture of the Committee at all. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 17:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:AFC/R
Hello Leo. Everytime I log on and check the WP:AFC/R page, you've already filled the requests (grrrr...). But anyways, I recommend you use the afc talk template to notify users that their request has been filled. Just leave this template: PAGENAMEHERE ~ on their talk page - it makes users more likely to contribute in the future. Cheers,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 23:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll remember that in the future. Thanks, and I suppose this gives a bit of a leg up. :P Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 23:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

مجدى عزيز
It is a bio in Arabic, of a person with no claim of notability, per Google online translator. It appears to be an autobiography. And could you please fix your signature so it provides a clear link to your talk page instead of some random article, which seems disruptive? Note how easy it was to click on "talk" in my signature and get to my discussion page. Thanks. Edison (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks for the translation; I usually don't machine translate them unless I know something of the language. As for my sig, I wouldn't necessary call it disruptive. I would rather not remove the Special:Random link unless it was insisted upon, but would changing it from Bloom to Leo make it less disruptive in your opinion? Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just add a normal signature. It sounds like you propose to make the sig Leo-Leo with the second Leo sending the other editor still to a random page. It indeed seems quite disruptive to send other editors to a random page when they seek to communicate, like an April Fool prank. If you add four tildes, a nice signature will result.Thanks Edison (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * But this is my normal signature; I sign with ~ every time. As for my proposition for a new signature, I'm sorry, I was unclear in that regard. I meant, what if my signature was: Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ). This would put a link to userpage in the position that is, on default settings, a link to the talk. Do you think that would make communication easier? Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never used a fancy signature, but how about Lәo βǃʘʘɱ but somehow appending an actual labelled "talk " link? How does sending people wishing to communicate with you to a random page equal anything but a prank and disruption? Edison (talk) 04:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If it were a prank or a distraction, I think someone would of mentioned it before. The first part of my signature links to userpage, with a clear notice to those who wish to leave me a message, and the second is, as I like think when I'm feeling especially idealistic, a reminder that we're building an encyclopedia. However, if you wish to see it changed, I will do so. Give me a minute to alter the raw code in my preferences. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This should be more to your liking. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for modifying it. This will be especially helpful to new editors such as the ones you welcome. Edison (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Instantaneous Personal Magnetism
I have nominated Instantaneous Personal Magnetism, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Instantaneous Personal Magnetism. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, I know. Thank you. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to you as the creator of the article and as the one sending it to AFD. Please assume good faith and do not either chastise the author for creating inappropriate articles or the AFD nominator for pointy AFD nominations. As the only author to have made a substantive edit, you could have requested speedy deletion to avoid bogging down AFD. A PROD might also have worked. Thanks. Edison (talk) 08:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have responded to that bit about tagging for CSD on the AfD. The former part though, about assuming good faith and pointy nominations; that I'm a bit confused about. Why are you telling me this? O_o Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 17:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Hans Puffin
Hello Leonard^Bloom, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Hans Puffin has been removed. It was removed by U08ca4 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with U08ca4 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

RfD nomination of Labinot syla
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Toni Turner
I cited a couple of things in WP:Articles for deletion/Toni Turner that you might find relevent. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification; much appreciated and happy editing. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/"Presidential Conscience"
Since you prodded this article, you may be interested to see that it is now the subject of an AfD discussion, if you have not already done so. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. It seems I was late to the party though. Thanks anyways, and happy editing. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 16:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

William Henry Sheppard
Hello Leonard, I've taken a good look over this article and made several edits for grammar and clarity. There are a few spots, which I have tagged, where additional clarification is needed from someone familiar with the sources (I left notes in comments in the article text). If you could take a look at those for me, that would be great. Also, please look over all my edits and make sure I didn't change something that altered fact (though I tried not to). Otherwise, it is excellently written, well sourced, perfectly illustrated and ready to be listed as a GA! Regards, Vicenarian  (T · C) 11:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Vicenarian, I can see why User:Javert recommended you. I have hopefully clarified that bit, and as for the [sic] bit, I just removed your note. It was my bad, and you did fix a grammatical error. Anything else, or am I missing something? Thanks again, Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He is quite good at what he does, if a bit slow at getting around to it. ;) <font style="color:#00C000">'''Ja<font style="color:#80C000">v<font style="color:#C08000">er <font style="color:#C00000">t  <font style="color:#2820F0">I knit sweaters, yo!  19:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey! I object to the implication that I'm slow at reviewing. I purposefully leave time between when I declare my intention to review an article and the actual review. This is to allow others interested in the article time to review, leave comments, make pre-review edits, etc. But yes, since I do review intensely, I have to have at LEAST an hour of total focus to complete one. And most of the time, I'm lazy. ;) Vicenarian  <sup style="font-family:Georgia;">(T · C) 15:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Lazy is a-okay 'round these parts. :P Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 18:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A stalker, I see? Also, for the record, I was a fan of the previous sig more. The colors are a bit excessive. :P Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, somedays all I do is edit user talk pages. :) In regards to the sig, I think that I agree with you and will probably end up changing it before too much longer. :) <font style="color:#00C000">'''Ja<font style="color:#80C000">v<font style="color:#C08000">er <font style="color:#C00000">t  <font style="color:#2820F0">I knit sweaters, yo!  19:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Great job. :) I just passed the article. Congrats! Vicenarian  <sup style="font-family:Georgia;">(T · C) 23:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Awwwww yeah. Thanks! Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 23:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see my hard work paid off. :P Recognizance (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Very true; you did put more time and effort into it than I did. Oh well. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 20:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I was actually being facetious about the fact that, if left to my own devices, Sheppard's article would still be in my sandbox interspersed with graffiti about George Wallace and Ota Benga and image captions like "Not a nice guy". Nice job. Recognizance (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah. Well, if I can be attributed the GA, I can also take the blame for you being a vandal. :P Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 06:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How silly of me to forget the Ostend Manifesto, which also occupied that space at one time. Recognizance (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't I remember Ostend Manifesto being an FA? O_o Huh. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 20:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Size does matter... at least on Wikipedia

 * Most of my recent fair-use resizing has been with this, a tool a friend of mine created. I've been testing it for her. Thanks for the barnstar though, and you do great work with images yourself; I've seen you around NFPing and such. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User:NuclearWarfare/William Thompson Lusk
I'm currently part way through writing this article that will eventually be William Thompson Lusk. There is quite a few memorials with information in War Letters. I started writing the prose, and have about 2k characters of that, but there is a lot more information that I have simply just taken notes on. I have about twenty more pages in War Letters remaining before I exhaust all my sources, I think. If you want to help out, feel free. User:NuclearWarfare/William_Thompson_Lusk (the notes section of that) is where I stopped off. Hopefully this will be helpful for you. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What you've got so far is incredibly impressive, and much more than I expected. I'll help out now and again, and I'm excited to see the final result. Nice work, and happy editing, Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Phew. That should be all of the research done.
 * Do you think you could help out with converting the bullet form notes to prose? I have cookies if you help ;) <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 04:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I can probably put some time in later tonight, and if not, tomorrow most definitely. It's looking really good this far. Plus, I love me some cookies.Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this time I'm sure
Okay, this time I'm sure this is the one. This is the topic I want to work on. For now. New England Emigrant Aid Company had one of those courtesy articles (kind of like Sheppard) where someone cared enough to create one but not enough to really work on it. Actually, it looked like someone was writing a school paper and never finished...

There's some good reading material for you on archive.org and/or Google I'm sure. I added an excessive number of books because I'm not sure what all I'll use. I even put in the edit summary that I'd probably make you clean up after me later. You should be honoured.

And I remember telling you about Ostend Manifesto passing - you must have forgotten. Recognizance (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Alrighty. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop playing with the image resize tool. Recognizance (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm on huggle right now, thank you very much. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 18:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Originally subtitled The New England Emigrant Aid Company in the Kansas Crusade


 * I hope it's more convenient for you, because unless it exists online, the closest copy I found was a little bit less 100 miles away. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

hello, leo, i am wondering why my article can not be approved.
hello, leo, i am wondering why my article can not be approved. I have read the message u sent to me. but i don't think it is a good reason. i sincerely hope that u can reconsider it.

Best wishes and good luck, Jessy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertfish08 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, and thanks for asking. :) Wikipedia has some guidelines on notability, and, in general, they can be summed up with: reliable sources need to back it up. Third party, independent, neutral sources. Your product, as I noted in my reasoning here does not have sources to back up anything about it. Without reliable sources, we can't discern notability. This isn't based on any personal feelings of my own. If you can provide sources that meet the requirements above (reliable, neutral, and third party), please mention them at the deletion discussion, and add them to the article. Thanks, and happy editing, Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 08:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

remaining SCH cover
Hi Leo,

Thanks for keeping the sch covers and for all your guidance through the process. You forgot to remove the deletion box from File:Album_SCH_whitemusic_cover.jpg. Please do. Best, srx 13:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StrindbergRex (talk • contribs)


 * I've removed the IFD notice. Thanks for the notifying me. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 16:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sner
It is a real slang word, but the stub was vandalism. I redirected it to Pilsner. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the notification. Didn't know it was slang. :) Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 18:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I just dabbed the redirect to Pilsener. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
From your message on my talk page I would not place this template either, but I'll still place it to inform you. :) --98.154.26.247 (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

one more SCH album cover for un-boxing
File:Album_SCH_deluge_cover.jpg thanks. srx 02:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StrindbergRex (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you for the notification. Are we sure this is the last one? :P Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Article name
Hi Leonard. Thank you very much for your sympathy!

Please, watch this: as it happens with other EN-WP articles, the article Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Bragança should be moved to Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza, and the first paragraph should be:

Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza (Portuguese: Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança) (Lisbon, March 13, 1907 - Verona, May 6, 1995) was the name assumed by a lady who claimed to be an bastard child of King Charles I of Portugal. Etc...

The reason: this is the English Wikipedia. So, the active title for this article should be the English title and not the Portuguese. Can you move and repair it? Thanks. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that you've mentioned this point here, so, if you don't mind, I'm going to leave it alone until it draws some further opinion. I'd say give it a few days, and if nothing happens, request for feedback. With the redirects that I just set up via WP:AFC/R, I think it shouldn't be too big a problem (but I'm not familiar with the matter). Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I will wait. But at least you can move to Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança? It's because the surname "Saxe-Coburgo-Bragança" was wrongly writed. If you read the article (supported by all sources), the surname correct is "Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança" without "-" before "Bragança". Thanks. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Could cite a few of those sources, either language? That'd ease my apprehension to make any changes. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 23:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See my note here. Also, after finding more discussion on the matter here and here, I think it'll be a bit more contentious than I previously though. User:Mcferran does bring up the point that she refers to herself the way the article is named currently, so I'm finding myself quite confused by the matter. I'll look into it later if nothing more is said about the matter. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyway, Leonard, in Portuguese language or in English, the surname was not correct. All sources cited Maria Pia as "Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança", not "Saxe-Coburgo-Bragança". Because of that reason, it should, at least, be moved to Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança. The name: "Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza" is also correct because is just an English translation. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you cite a few of those sources? That would ease my apprehension. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 23:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, my friend. In Fernando Luso Soares; Maria Pia, Duquesa de Bragança contra D. Duarte Pio, o senhor de Santar. Lisbon: Minerva, 1983, we can read perfectly «D. Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança» in page 5. And in other sources and bibliography cited by the article we can found the same "Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança" or "Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha e Bragança" (most complete) surname. Anyway, if you see the original article in WP:PT, you have also a mention to the correct surname. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, that clears that up. For the sake of impartial mediation, could you also point to sources that User:Mcferran is mentioning here? Do those exist? I.e., did she refer to herself frequently as ...-Braganca? Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 23:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Leonard, User:Mcferran don't refers any concrete source as I did. He just says «that is the name most commonly used for her in literature», but without present any mentions. All cited books on Princess Maria Pia's article mention her as "Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança" and/or "Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha e Bragança", never as "...-Bragança". And the original article on WP:PT proves it. You can also regard the Royal Princess of Portugal on many TV shows and on the News: Maria Pia of Braganza and her direct speeches. So, it should be moved, at least, to Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright. The way he says it, he seems to imply that she referred to herself as "...-Braganca"; she did not do this in your experience? Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess my experience doesn't matter here. The important is that all sources mention Princess Maria Pia as "de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança" (as her abreviated surname) and "de Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha e Bragança" (as her complete surname). Watch all the sources that I gave you. Do you need more? 84.90.92.195 (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the sources you provided, combined with the material on the article are fine. If the matter is not discussed on the talk page in the next few days, I will change it. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As you may notice, the manner is being discussed on the talk page currently. I'm sure you be interested in joining the discussion. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, Leonard. I totally agree with JamesBWatson. The Google results are: With her complete surname (including "Gotha") and without it, this results are clear. And also based on Wikipedia conventions policy, the article about Princess Maria Pia of Braganza should be moved. Can you help us? 84.90.92.195 (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * about 4,090,000 for Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza (0.08 seconds)
 * about 4,080,000 for Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza (0.10 seconds)


 * The discussion is still ongoing and I'd prefer to let it run it's course before making a page move, as it seems some people disagree or have their own ideas. The suggestion of taking this to WP:RM is a good one, I think, because it could be a bit of a controversial move judging by the previous discussion over the idea. I'd rather just wait and see where this goes. WP:DEADLINE, basically. :) Thanks, Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 16:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OMG! But people are forgetting what means "valid and reliable sources"? I'm based on bibliographic sources, not in "own ideas". Remember that Wikipedia is not a chat, or a coffee shop. As you know, here we just should publish valid information. I hope you understand it and help me. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with you completely on that matter; no original research and there must be reliable sources. (Note, though, I meant "ideas" to mean that it seems people have their own thoughts on how to name the article; their own interpretation of the naming policy.) I'm tending to agree with you on the matter, but it's getting a bit heated. I still hold my "wait and see" attitude. I'm sorry if that's not fast enough for you, but I do not wish to anger anyone, nor ignore consensus. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 17:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, correct your proposal. The article shoul be moved to Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza!!! This is the correct translation! 84.90.92.195 (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I've found myself as an informal mediator on the matter. Not knowing the issue, and not wishing to choose sides, could you make the request on the talk page? (I don't know Portuguese, and you may be the only editor on the article who does, but it's the sad truth that even for this base information you'll have to jump through hoops, in this case, a discussion on the matter.) Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 18:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, for the translation move do you mean to move it to Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança as at the moment it is part Portuguese part English. - dwc lr (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you. :) Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 18:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Translated or not, the surname is the same (and not considered necessarely as a title): "Saxe-Coburg and Braganza" = "Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança" (but in different languages). The article should be moved because this is the WP:EN and the naming conventions for names and titles is use the most common form of the name used in English. Just it, nothing more! Regard this:


 * Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza (Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança) (Lisbon, March 13 1907 - Verona, May 6 1995) was the name assumed by a lady who claimed to be an bastard daughter of King Carlos I of Portugal. Etc...


 * It's the name, not any title. It's imparcial and everyone can understand. Why cannot be of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza? 84.90.92.195 (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If the surname means the same in both languages and if we are on WP:EN, why do not translate? 84.90.92.195 (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Per the discussion on the talk page, it seems the consensus was to move to the title I had adapted it to. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I learn today that, here, in WP:EN, the rules are not to apply everyone. If to someone we translate and accept, to others no. The rules defined by WP policy and mentioned by JamesBWatson was ignored in all discussion... Incrible! 84.90.92.195 (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If that is the case, I am sorry. However, today only affirms what I have known about wikipedia policy and guidelines: they can be altered, to allow to project to grow accordingly. Consensus allows for guidelines to be altered/ignored if the majority of people feel that it will better the encyclopedia. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Many people don't feel that it will be better to the encyclopedia, but just for his own believes and partidarism causes. For example: in the History of Portugal, the Monarchic Constitution promulgated in 1838, and never revoked, categorically states as follows (in article 98): "The collateral line of the ex-infant Dom Miguel and all his descendants are perpetually excluded from the succession". So, how can we consider Miguel, Duarte Nuno and Duarte Pio as members of Portuguese royalty and Dukes of Braganza? The Monarchic Constitution of Portugal is not a valid source? Sould not be considered here? Please, Leonard! Many persons here acusing me of partidarism, but the truth is that the war against Princess Maria Pia of Braganza surname is only to better promote the Miguelist cause and not the better of Wikipedia. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What does this have to do with the translation of the name? I'm not helping either "side" promote any view, be it Miguelist or otherwise. I'm merely following the consensus. You can ask for a request for a comment if you feel the change was unfair. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 20:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi are you an admin can you move the Talk:Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Bragança to match the new title if not ill put an unctroversial request at WP:RM in, cheers. - dwc lr (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, sorry, not an admin. The request should be fast enough. :) Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries I've put request in, thanks. - dwc lr (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Royalty surnames
The DWC LR are deleting valid information on Maria Pia's article. Jean Pailler's biography about Maria Pia of Braganza cleary explains that her daughters had the surnames of royalty, and also explain that the Spanish Congress of Deputies had decided that her grandsons should also mantain the royalty surnames. So, the article as I edited is correct. Please, read Jean Pailler book. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The valid and reliable source is: Jean Pailler; Maria Pia: A Mulher que Queria Ser Rainha de Portugal. Lisbon: Bertrand, 2006. (If he refuse a valid and reliable source, he's comitting vandalism on WP:EN). The information should be replaced. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Re.
hi Leonard

I'm not making any "vandalism" but just suggesting a change to the Formula cars roll-bar that may SAVE the driver's LIFE

that's why I'm posting it in the Formula 1 main and contructors pages

I hope that you did NOT delete them and (best) publish it also in the pages where I've no time to post

thanks

gaetano marano —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.101.26 (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe you have made a bad thing reverting my posts!

I did NOT SELL anything and (despite the F1 costructors have LOTS of money) my idea of a safer roll-bar is absolutely FREE OF CHARGE since it's aimed to SAVE the driver's LIFE and avoid other deaths like happened last week to Henry Surtees

but, probably, you and Wikipedia are much more preoccupied to avoid "promotions" than SAVE LIVES... :(

gaetano marano (62.10.101.26 (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

ps - one possible option: publish my idea and the image on the same Wiki pages WITHOUT any link to my website

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.101.26 (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Kingcol
Thanks for addding your "helpful" message in the middle of my getting Kingcol underway. Please let me know when you are done "helping out" so I can stop writing only to have your notes cause editing conflicts. I will finish this up when you are done with your part of the equation. Mkpumphrey (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for causing you problems. I added underconstruction because the article did not have any text on it besides the See also and the references. I did not mean to create an edit conflict, but they should be rather easy to remedy in situations like that, where I only added text. Thanks for notifying me, and I'm sorry. You may wish to have a full draft done before adding the new article, which would be a work-around to similar problems. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Katawa Shoujo
I'm not testing. I intended to make that change. It says in the article what the word means in Japanese. --84.16.208.220 (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for striking out the warnings. Can you change the article back to the way I edited it too? --84.16.208.220 (talk) 05:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)