User talk:Kim Leung

Welcome!
Hello, Kim Leung, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Carrie Lam. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mr. Guye (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of D. W. Waterson


A tag has been placed on D. W. Waterson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. —C.Fred (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indie Series Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Bay ([//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Indie_Series_Awards check to confirm] | [//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Indie_Series_Awards?client=notify 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) 11:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Adam Murciano
I just removed your second placement of a PROD deletion notice on Adam Murciano. Per WP:PROD, "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected [...] it may only be placed on a page a single time." (emphasis theirs.) As such, if you think the article should be deleted, your next step would be to start the process detailed at WP:AFD, which would initiate a proper discussion of the potential deletion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note, Nat Gertler. I have just completed the process. Please join the discussion here. Kim Leung (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Canadian Screen Awards
Please note that Wikipedia does not have a blanket rule against red links in articles — it depends on the context. While there are certainly articles (e.g. List of Canadian writers) where redlinked people should be removed as the list has a "the article must already exist" restriction on it due to its frequent abuse as an "add myself!" directory for non-notable wannabes, there are many other articles in which redlinks are not forbidden. In articles like 5th Canadian Screen Awards, our notability standards for films, television series and people in the film or television industries are that nomination for a top-level national award like the CSAs is a WP:NMEDIA or WP:CREATIVE pass in its own right — which means that the mere fact that the name is present in that article is, in and of itself, an absolute notability guarantee as soon as somebody gets around to actually creating the article. So in an article like that, the redlinks need to be left in place, because if and when somebody does finally get around to creating a new article about one of those people or titles, they won't be able to go back and relink it if they don't know where it is. So please don't go around comprehensively unlinking the redlinks in every article you happen to come across: there are many articles where the redlinks are expected to be maintained so that we know where articles are needed. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies, Bearcat. Kim Leung (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ruben Östlund, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Producer ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ruben_%C3%96stlund check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ruben_%C3%96stlund?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:Minor edits and not signing in
Sttuf like this is not a WP:Minor edit. You should not mark edits as minor when they are not. And I don't see why you are editing as this IP at the Uma Thurman article, but you should consider staying logged in, like you were when you made this edit there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies! Thanks. Though to be clear, I was fixing punctuation errors, not causing them, and, also, re: "Often hailed as" is factual and based in several references scattered throughout the article. Thurman is often referred to positively as Tarantino's muse in several third party and high profile sources. Kim Leung (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Often hailed" is WP:PEACOCK. If a source specifically states that, we can work with it. Right now, the article is being edited by random IP accounts adding stuff like this. Tenebrae, any thoughts on any of this? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree that "often hailed" is a peacock term. Also that the anon IP is adding WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how anything I added was WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Can you provide an example? Regarding the WP:PEACOCK, that makes sense. Perhaps instead of "often hailed", it could say "often cited as"? Thoughts on this, Tenebrae and Flyer22 Reborn? Kim Leung (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your discussion of the issue. Thank you, Kim. I believe having people's height and weight in article prose is indiscriminate overdetail. I think "often cited as Tarantino's muse," properly cited, is accurate.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tenebrae. Kim Leung, regarding the height/shoe stuff, we mean the other IP if you are not also that IP. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I definitely did not add anything regarding her height or weight, Flyer22 Reborn. Kim Leung (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Shether
Per your request at WP:RFPP, I've semiprotected the article for one month. But if you think IPs have been adding wrong information you should explain what you are referring to on the article talk page. So far there is nothing at all on the talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Removing stuff with no explanation and WP:Minor edits again
Kim Leung, above I addressed you about WP:Minor edits. This and this are not minor edits. With that first piece, you removed content with no explanation and it looks as though you removed it simply because you do not like it. From I can see, it should be restored. And with that second edit, you removed a large amount of material while marking it as minor. And I see that you are still marking other non-minor edits as minor too. Stop doing that. Read WP:Minor to see what is meant by "minor edit." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, with that first edit, I see that the content was already in the article, but stated differently. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Minor edits
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

March 2018
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you.
 * I see this has been mentioned to you several times. Is there a particular reason that you are ignoring all these requests to stop inappropriately marking your edits as "minor"? -- Begoon 06:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm working to do better! Some edits seems minor enough they don't warrant the extra effort and it might just be forgetfulness, too. Apologies. Kim Leung (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but it really isn't relevant what "seems minor enough" to you. Marking edits as "minor" when they are not is deceptive, because you are effectively saying "I didn't really change anything - no need to check this", and with many of the edits you mark this way that is simply not the case. The occasions when using the "minor" checkbox is appropriate are clearly outlined at Help:Minor edit, which you've been linked to several times. Please only mark edits as "minor" when they comply with those guidelines, and if you are in any doubt about a particular edit then don't mark it that way. The problem appears to be that you are "defaulting" to marking as minor, only very rarely not doing - it should be the other way around - you should "default" to not marking as "minor", only ticking that box when you are absolutely certain it applies. Basically you need to alter the way you think about what a "minor" edit is, in line with the guidelines. From the linked page, in a nutshell: "A good rule of thumb is that edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content should be flagged as minor edits." Thank you. -- Begoon 06:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Kim Leung (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But apparently it was a complete waste of my time, because the 11 edits you have made since are all but one marked as minor, even though the vast majority of them make substantial changes to content. Ah, well, I tried... -- Begoon 08:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, crap! I've ben writing descriptions for everything, though. Will stop marking as 'minor'. Its become a habit. I will stop! Thank you. Kim Leung (talk) 08:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, well I did notice the detailed edit summaries, which are a good thing, but the problem is that for people who have hidden minor edits from their watchlist the edits, and their summaries, will never be seen at all, no matter how detailed. -- Begoon 08:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can't see whether or not it's minor when I look back under through my edit summaries, so it was easy to forget. Noted, moving forward. Kim Leung (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aisling Walsh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Director ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Aisling_Walsh check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Aisling_Walsh?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Karena Evans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Director ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Karena_Evans check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Karena_Evans?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Minor edits yet again
As seen here, you are still marking non-minor edits as minor. Per what Begoon and I have stated above, why can't you stop doing that? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I made it minor because I didn't make any significant structural or content changes, save for moving the guiness world records lower into the body of the lead, but the rest of the edits I made were rather minor (fixing the sloppy use of the em dash, rearranging poor wording, etc). I've reverted them back and re-inserted the 2009 GWR at the top where it was. Also, my reasoning for moving the GWR sentence is because in most articles about singers, these facts are included lower with the rest of the awards - however, here, I thought it fit because that paragraph that I had added it to seemed to be describing her career chronologically through the 1990s into the 2000s, so it made sense to place a 2009 item there. I changed it back though. Kim Leung (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:Minor is clear. That edit was not minor. Neither are a number of other recent edits you've made. Maybe you should simply stop marking edit as minor since the vast majority of your edits are not minor. Regarding the Elton John piece, I now see why you removed that since it was cited to Wikipedia...if that is why you removed it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Lady Gaga, you may be blocked from editing. You not only reverted the addition of an image which was achieved through consensus, you blatantly added image related forced constraints and pixels which are thoroughly discouraged in all featured articles. — IB [ Poke ] 19:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Artpop, you may be blocked from editing. — IB [ Poke ] 19:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Sorry, but how are the edits I made to Artpop at all disruptive? Please explain. And as for the "blatantly added image related forced constraints and pixels which are thoroughly discouraged in all featured articles", I only did that because when I moved the images slightly, it appeared that they grew too large and there was some sort of glitch. I was merely trying to preserve the structure of the article. I don't think this is disruptive. I also didn't realize or see the consensus for this photo.. Where can that be found? I would like to read it because I have a hard time understanding how that photo could be deemed the most appropriate to represent Gaga as an artist. It is extremely unflattering. Kim Leung (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Kelly McCormack and File:Kelly_McCormack_at_web_series_premiere.png
In a post at the Teahouse an editor claiming to be Kelly McCormack says that she holds the copyright to the image File:Kelly_McCormack_at_web_series_premiere.png and requests that it be taken down. You uploaded this image stating it to be your "own work". Can you say any more about the circumstance in which this image was created? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Image copyright violation concerns
... and further to the post immediately above, over at Commons I have also challenged your claimed ownership of images which I believe you have cropped and uploaded that others have taken. I have specified links for two of the images here the evidence is overwhelming, and I have serious concerns over your claim to the image of Nicki Minaj, too. For details, see Nick Moyes (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC).
 * Update: As you know, I have now confirmed that you simply took a screen grab from a Nicki Minaj YouTube video and claimed it as your own work. Two admins here have now lodged a complaint about you at the administrator noticeboard on Wikimedia Commons. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Giants (web series)


A tag has been placed on Giants (web series) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Lettlerhello • contribs 02:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
Your edit to Point and Line to Plane has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. signed,Rosguill talk 23:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)