User talk:Leo Lazauskas

Unreasoned edits
Another (of many possible) example! Very annoying: Have you actually visited the Rangitata Island airfield? Paul Beardsell 12:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It claims it is is "impressive and growing". Unsourced and weaselish. [leo, presumably]

So, you've never been there. You have no reason for doubting that the collection is growing. If the article said the collection was "reducing and unimpressive" would you have removed those words? What you are doing is close to vandalism! I know weasel words when I see them, but now you have taken me from knowing that at least ONE person is impressed and that ONE person thinks the collection is growing to a position where I do not know that. The best thing to do would be to leave alone. At least a citation request does not destroy info. But here you are, removing info! Please stop. Paul Beardsell 15:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If I think it deserves a tag, it gets one. Leo 15:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case you removed info, you did not add a tag. Paul Beardsell 15:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did, didn't I. Shoo. Leo 15:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you did not. I'm not going anywhere until your edits are made with a little more thought and consideration so that, for instance, you can remember what you have and have not done. Paul Beardsell 16:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries, d00d. However, keep in mind that I don't take advice from your type. You are just here for my amusement. Leo 16:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Benji Olson
I noticed that you tagged the article Benji Olson with a tag that information in the article may become dated. What information in that article could potentially become dated? I can't find anything myself. Please tell me what it is that you find to be dated - I will try to improve it if it needs improving. Otherwise, I will remove the tag. --TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

JOhn Minnion
I noticed that you added the tag "wikify" to the John Minnion article. I can't see how it could have any more links within reason. Could you clarify, here or on the article talkpage, what you think needs linking? Otherwise I'll remove the tag. Thanks. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit of Walford reference
Hi Leo, hope this is the right way to do this. I modified the walford entry a few days ago to more realistically reflect a court ruling. You re edited my version as is a reasonable thing to do I guess. But I am concerned at what you chose to add back. The only part added was that used by the sensationalist press in their reports. The school is concerned about this since the terms you have put back, "that it would suffer undue economic hardship" was only one of a raft of concerns that was put and almost the last of a list. It was the only one reported. This is not a true representation of the situation. Happy to keep the citation to the press articles, tho' the ABC news one is better than the Adelaide Now one, but all good. Just feeling that the tone of the note now is not a true representation of the situation. I am not changing it now out of respect for yourself... keen to know your take on this and why you want that line especially replaced. Hope we can come to a mutual agreement on this. 202.6.138.170 (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I included the school's "economic" argument because it is the only one for which I have a reference. If you have supporting links to references for other arguments put forward by the school, I'd be happy to see them included as well. Leo (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing on the public record to that effect. Journalists decided that that was the most attractive one to report. So, while I have the submission it is not a public document we can cite. We will have to let it ride as is. Thanks for the discussion.202.6.138.170 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC).

Australian Communications and Media Authority
Hi, you seem to have reverted 3 days and 66 revisions of Australian Communications and Media Authority, without any reason given in the edit summary or a notice on the talk page. Please see Help:Reverting for information on information required when reverting, and alternatives to reverting. TRS-80 (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there were 66 revisions, most of which were ridiculous IMO. YMMV. Leo (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In future, please actually look at the diffs before accusing people of vandalism. TIA AntiStatic (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

ACMA
Hi Leo. Just letting you know there is quite a bit of contention from the link you added to the ACMA page. You may be interested in joining the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasonwins (talk • contribs) 08:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What a schmozzle! What is with these authoritarian twerps who keep deleting perfectly good links to real information? Leo (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Do not call any long term editor a vandal!
Excuse me how uncivil and bad faith of you to call my edit "vandal". Please revert and retract that. Bidgee (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you're not a vandal. You are someone who removed a useful, relevant link on a wiki page, and that is not vandalism in the "sack Rome" sense of the word. You, sir, are not a vandal - no way, no how -and anyone who suggests that you are is completely, utterly, irretrievably wrong. Leo (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Further disruptive edits at this page, or its talk page, or any futher uncivil comments to other editors will see you blocked - I note that an editor has asked for an apology please attend to this request -- VS talk 10:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So, someone removing the link is not vandalism, but including what some of us believe is a relevant link is vandalism? What an interesting interpretation! Leo (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree with the original warning admin that you're treading a very fine line - disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is broadly frowned upon. Orderinchaos 07:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''This edit is clearly to showcase your personal political point. It has already been shown you have a clear conflict of interest. Spreading this dispute into a wider context within Wikipedia shows you are not operating in the best interest of Wikipedia, but in your own interest. You are walking a fine line here. '' --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 14:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted to a previous edit by someone else. I didn't add the link on the Pro-life page originally, but I thought it was wrong to remove the link so I reverted. Just as someone removed it based on their opinion as to what would improve the page. I guess it needs adjudication. Leo (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Jhmichell.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Jhmichell.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Kratocracy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kratocracy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Kratocracy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BDD (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)