User talk:Leo1pard/Archive 7

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Eogeometer


A tag has been placed on Category:Eogeometer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Bear versus bull
Hello, Leo1pard. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bear versus bull, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Your recent edit summaries at the Tiger versus lion article are less than helpful... "Woah there, the policeman is back!" and "BritishTiger, you better not repeat the same mistakes in Wikipedia that you have done elsewhere!" being your two most recent examples. The other editor you appear to be edit warring with was blocked for disruptive editing earlier and it is well past time editors at this article showed a little more willingness to engage in talk page discussion rather than use edit summaries to post unhelpful messages towards each other. A look at the article edit history will show the silliness of the situation. Please do your bit and use proper edit summaries for edits and / or reverts from this point on please. Perhaps it is time to take a little of your own advice perhaps? -- Longhair\talk 18:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Mate, there is no need to fix/edit those accounts added by user BritishTiger, they’ll just be removed for being unreliable. I’ll do it tomorrow. KejuFuru (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * They're about as reliable as a number of accounts of lions winning, so if you remove those other accounts, then they may remove the accounts of the lions winning, so I wouldn't do that, if I were you. Leo1pard (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Mate, I asked Longhair and he said I am completely allowed to remove the accounts which are tagged as “deprecated (unreliable)” and I do not think any lion winning account said that, I am just trying to keep the victories of both of these creatures equal now. I’ll discuss that in a talk page soon, for now I am reverting British Tiger’s edits as they are clearly unreliable according to wiki. There is a reason it is tagged as that, it is nice talking to you. KejuFuru (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that the other 2 will allow it though, judging from their actions. Leo1pard (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

One of them is already blocked, I wont remove any normal accounts, my goal is just to remove the deprecated one and be as neutral as possible by keeping both creature’s killing accounts equal. Tijkil will just get blocked if he does the same thing as BritishTiger (disruptive editing). Don’t worry, and damn I couldn’t find any time to revert the edits today, I’ll try tomorrow. KejuFuru (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

"Three Brothers River" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Three Brothers River. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 30 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)