User talk:LeaveSleaves/Archive 3

Stakeholder theory
I didn't want to revert your revert, but I think this article needs to go back at least one more version. I'm sure that my memory is inflating the number, but I seem to recall reading millions upon millions of articles on stakeholder theory in business school - in any case, certainly more than one.

Cheers,

Fred (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I couldn't find the edit you are referring to. Could you point it out for me? LeaveSleaves (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

ICFAI
I am referring to the ICFAI entry.Dont you think the section "Criticism on ICFAI" is self defeating as it just talks about Tuition Fee related issues while at the same time quoting the ICFAI University Rule book,thus proving that there is no controversy.

If the University makes and clearly states a rule,and accordingly goes by that rule book..how does that constitute to a violation of anything!!!

I removed it as I felt is only gives a overall negative impression while sensationalizing some thing thats clearly doesn't merit deserve that kind of treatment.

Anyways..guess you are superuser or whatever so u get to rule wikipedia I guess...so i get a message saying i vandalised it....Silly!!

So much or being a people's Encyclopedia!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.85.12 (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason I reverted your edits was that you removed substantial amount of content from the page without using appropriate edit summary. If you feel your edits were valid, please go ahead. But make sure that you give an appropriate explanation for your edit, else it might be reverted again. LeaveSleaves (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Links on True Blood
You wrote" Both the links that you have added on the article are not associate with HBO in anyway. Please do not add them again." You really need to do your research better. For example, Bloodcopy.com is the biggest viral site created by HBO for the series. Also, The True-blood.tv site is hosting HBO sanctioned give-aways from HBO each week. --72.49.126.196 (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Message at the bottom of site trueblood.tv: "This site is not affiliated with HBO or the True Blood cast/crew in any way."
 * I've no objections with Bloodcopy. LeaveSleaves (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't you think it's notable that the .tv site was the only one giving away Tru Blood samples, given how important that marketing was to the series all summer? --72.49.126.196 (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, considering they are not associated with HBO, I don't see how that can be considered as valid marketing of the series. LeaveSleaves (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Mayanism Vandalism
Thanks for fixing the vandalism on the Mayanism page! I just spotted that today. Hoopes (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem! LeaveSleaves (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You're awesome!
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage! Keep up the good work. — Ł ittle Ä lien¹8² (talk\contribs) 20:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't mention it!! LeaveSleaves (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

you make my vandal patrol work frustrating!
Dude, can't you leave any for me to take care of? :) cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry! That's the deal with Huggle, you just can't stop. Keep up the good work though! LeaveSleaves (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
...for reverting the Vandal edits to my userpage. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem!! LeaveSleaves talk 19:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Olan deasy
you tagged Olan deasy for deletion under WP:G7 it had not been blanked nor, as far as I can see requested. please explain, I'm sure we can clear it up, cheers! SpitfireTally-ho! 13:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I see you have removed the tag, please disregard my previous message, cheers SpitfireTally-ho! 13:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

OMG Vandals!
Thanks for all the good vandal hunting today. :) -FlyingToaster (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem! LeaveSleaves talk 15:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandal OMG OMG
Dude, why did you delete my picture of a laughing man under the page LAUGHTER!? completly unreasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forsberg33 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page! I had my userpage protected and I can't believe that the vandals actually went for my userpage (though I probably should have expected it in hindsight). Keep up the good work! D ARTH P ANDA talk 00:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: warning on external link
I'm very sorry for whatever I did. I was just trying to make an Internal link, not an external one. Thanks for letting me know on my mistake. Also, I would perfer if you leave the reply on my talk page, as my watchlist has so many pages I'll probably miss your talk. (Sorry) Thanks again! leujohn ( talk, contribs ) 09:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think my message for you wasn't exactly correct and hence I'm removing it from your talk page. The reason I reverted that edit was because you were adding information on a fan site, something normally frowned upon. LeaveSleaves talk 10:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies
Greetings,

Thanks to User:Finlay McWalter, I have just realised that I had mistakenly applied on your account the 24-hour block intended for User:194.217.93.116. This has since been fixed, and I hope that this caused no inconvenience. My deepest apologies for this mistake. Rama (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No Problem! I was offline for last hour, so no harm done! LeaveSleaves talk 09:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Falles
Hi there! I saw you edited this page and "agreed" with my point of view as to not include that box of catalan speaking world. I do believe it is unnecessary as any language-speaking world infobox would be. What do you think?--Arthurbrown (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am a recent changes patroller and my edit on the said page was to revert vandalism. So I'm afraid I cannot help you in said regard. LeaveSleaves talk 12:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ta
Stupid vandals... [ roux  ] [ x ] was prince of canada 11:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

NOT vandalısıng
ım tryıng to dıfferencıate between shahab the name and the mıssıleö please be patıentö or at least helpful :=) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunifa88 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism from User:69.137.146.66
For obscene edits such as this one, you should give the user one warning. -- IRP ☎ 21:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestion. Since I use a semi-automated tool for reverting vandalism and normally revert multiple vandals simultaneously, it's difficult to manually enter the specific template you suggested. Still, I'll try and do that in the future. LeaveSleaves talk 21:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

rename shahab (missile)
Hi. I'm not able to rename the article Shahab(missile) to Shahab, which is the right thing to do since the article is a disambugation. Help please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunifa88 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made Shahab as the main disambiguation page and redirected Shahab (missile) and Shahab (given name) to it. I hope this solves your problem. Please let me know if you need help with anything else. LeaveSleaves talk 09:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Tennis project and featured content
Right now the Tennis wikiproject has no actual tennis featured content. Sure it has two FAs, both about video games, but for a project of such significance it's really poor. I'm trying to initiate a discussion as to why this is the case and what can be done about it and I was really hoping you could contribute to the discussion here. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Life on Mars US title.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Life on Mars US title.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 05:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

FIA vandalism
Weeell ... yes and no. It was an IP vandal with only those two edits to their name. I often find that particular address never shows up again, presumably because they're on a dynamic address, and the warning is wasted. Diff'rent strokes and all that. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just that the vandal has been warned only once even after acting for four times. I believe a preliminary warning is never wasted, at least for an obvious vandal. Plus, the initial warnings are quite simplistic and not harmless. LeaveSleaves talk 11:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:A little help
It was decided that all images on Wikimedia Commons from Emil Rensing's Flickr account should be deleted, and no further ones uploaded, in this discussion. Although it is probable that not all of the images were copyright violations, some of them certainly were, so it was established that he was too unreliable to trust. I sent him a message using FlickrMail, but he never replied. Thus, you shouldn't upload any photos from his photostream, and if you see that anyone else has done so, you should mark them for deletion with reference to the earlier discussion. I hope this clarifies the situation.-- Diniz  (talk)  12:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again
for guarding my back. I wouldn't have caught that one nearly as soon as you did. ~ Troy (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 Belgian Grand Prix
I am going to list this article for good article status. I have just expanded the race section to a good standard, done a spell check, removed contractions and checked links. I can't see any reasons why the page could not pass. Apterygial (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Great work with the article. I'll try and help you refine it. Also, I have a feeling that if we push hard enough, we might be able to aim for an FA status. We can discuss that after GA nomination. LeaveSleaves talk 04:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Nominating now. Great job, too. Apterygial (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I might as well take this opportunity to apologise for my push for a chicanegate page a month age. Given a month's distance from the fact I can now see what a pointless argument from my side it was. Of course the controversy belongs on the page itself, where the hell else would it go? And I agree with you, this could certainly one day be an FA article, and given how often it will probably be referenced in future articles (just like the 2005 United States Grand Prix page is) we should probably try and acheive that. Apterygial (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize. There was nothing wrong with your argument. The idea is to create the best possible contribution. LeaveSleaves talk 07:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The editor reveiwing this article has flagged copyeditting as being his major concern. Being relatively inexperienced at Wikipedia myself, anything you could do there would be hugely useful. Apterygial (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

barn star
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

How do you feel about mops?
Hello there! I know that we haven't interacted before, and I confess that I stumbled on your userpage in a somewhat random manner, but you seem to do good work around here, and are courteous to both new and established users. Have you had an RfA before? Hope to hear back from you. :) Glass  Cobra  15:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Admin coaching is a bit of a risky move, believe it or not; I'm not sure how much exposure you've had to our RfA arena, but some users believe that it constitutes gaming the system, having candidates be told what they need to know to pass an RfA rather than actually being good admins. While I definitely do not subscribe to this school of thought, I do not want any RfA that you inevitably undertake to be burdened with undue opposes. Do you use IRC or any other chatting medium? I'd like to discuss this in a little more detail with you before we undertake any sort of formalized coaching. Glass  Cobra  16:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

images
":" I will be sure to follow guidelines for uploading images from this point on,I am new to uploading and apologize for the problem. (Mccloud1984 (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC))
 * No problem. Feel free to ask if you need any help. LeaveSleaves talk 19:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)