User talk:Leon7

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! &mdash; Khoikhoi 05:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr. article
I noticed your edit on the above cited article today. Is it your contention that Joseph taught that humans become equivalent to God the Father? Is that the reason for capitalizing the letter "G" in God?

I think you will find LDS believe that God the Father will always, for eternity, be the God of his children. There will never be a time when "we" become equivalent to God the Father. Storm Rider (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Cuculoupe
Copied from User talk:Pollinator

Hello Pollinator: You recently deleted an edit I made on the Cucumber article regarding Cuculoupes. Within the last week, this info was on the AP news service and was picked up by hundreds of news web sites, television and radio stations, etc. I though that it would be of interest to the reader of the article because of it's unusual nature. Your stated reason for the delete was, "rem nonsense "documented" only by pulp magazine." I don't know what kind of documentation you are looking for on breaking news. Obviously, it's too soon for it to hit the print magazines... yet. But, Here's one from a New Orleans newspaper.   Here's one from CBS News.   I found at least 500 news stories of this on Google. So what kind of documentation would you like to see? I could not find anything in "pulp magazine" that was relevant, so I don't know what "nonsense" you are referring to. I would, maybe understand it, if you were to say that it's not encyclopedic or professional or something along those lines, and I would respect your opinion. So please reconsider your edit. Otherwise, please educate me on proper citing, since I'm relatively new to WP. Thanks. Leon7 03:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Crosses among cucurbits are not impossible, but the story has some of the earmarks of a hoax, so I'd be cautious. Note the breathless tone of the story, as presented in the pulp magazine you provided as a reference. You half expect to hear them say it was fathered by Elvis.
 * Another thing that is conspicuous to anyone who works with cucurbits is the gaps in the story. The quoted "expert" says the cucumber and cantaloupe were planted "close together." The terminology seems unlikely, as this "expert" surely must know that simply being close together would not produce a cross. It's as if the pollen magically jumped from one plant to another. Cucurbit pollen is heavy and sticky and will not be airborne; it needs a pollinator, such as a bee, to carry it from one plant to another. Of course the "expert" could be talking down to a reporter, or the reporter might not be listening very well.
 * The fact that it was picked up by major news sources like CBS (why didn't you link to that in the first place?) reduces the possibility of a hoax, as they supposedly would check the story out. I'm still not entirely convinced though, as the major news agencies have been hoaxed as well. If you want to put it back in (with better sources), I won't remove it, as the onus will be on them, if it proves to be a phony. Pollinator 03:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Voyager 1
You added the statement that Voyager 1 would be the farthest object until 2070. I cannot find any spacecraft that will pass it at any date. Rmhermen 18:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I made the assumption that New Horizons would hold its speed, which is currently 4.956 AU/year relative to the Sun (vs. 3.615 for Voyeger 1), which was probably wrong of me to do. I don't know how much NASA expects NH to slow down or speed up.  But the year 2070 came from a simple calculation of the difference between the 2 speeds.  Do you have any more info on the projected velocity of NH as it leaves the solar system? Thanks fro catching this error. Leon7 19:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the New Horizons team that probe will be doing 13 km/s at 100 AU versus 17 km/s for Voyager 1. I wonder if your figure for NH's current speed relative to the Sun is correct. Rmhermen 19:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I got my figures from a nice little table at Spacecraft Escaping the Solar System &mdash; current positions and diagrams. It's supposed to be the latest info. Leon7 20:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Electrical engineering
Thanks for your edit. Please--Light current 21:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC) be aware that User:Cedars is attempting major unagreed changes to this page which I trying to prevent. Hopefully your edits wont get lost, but if they do for any reasono, youll know why. 8-)

Hale Centre Theatre
According to the deletion log, the page was deleted because it was "non-notable". Four days after your article was created, Cassmus tagged it with db-group (an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject.) Is there a reason why this particular theatre is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia? Perhaps you could review Notability before recreating the article. You can also ask questions at the help desk or the village pump if you want. Hope that helped! Cheers, Khoikhoi 05:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Doris Day
Recently an anon user at the IP 68.236.61.97 posted false warnings on your userpage, claiming you vandalized Doris Day while claiming to be User:MartinBot. I reverted this user's edits, and have warned the user at User talk:68.236.61.97 for 3rr violations and impersonation. If the user continues to violate Wikipedia policy, I think there's more than enough grounds for an appropriate 4im warning, personally.--AgentCDE / Talk / 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.Leon7 21:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Looked but haven't found it?
Hi Leon7, In regards to Holy of Holies (LDS Church), what do you mean that "I've looked but haven't found it"? Not only are there plenty of quotes in the article itself stating that it exists in the SL Temple, but there is even a link to a picture of it. I'm confused why a citation beyond these is needed. If you haven't seen it personally, I'd be happy to point you in the right direction. Cheers,--Rojerts 03:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The sentence in question says that "only the Salt Lake Temple has a Holy of Holies." I'm questioning whether there is only one, or are there more.  I have recently been told of a specific location in the Jordan River Temple where there's another one; I don't know if that's true, but wondered if there were more of them in other temples, or if anyone can shed some light on the question (cite).  A search of Google failed to produce anything that may help answer the question. Leon7 17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough (I've heard similar things regarding the DC Temple, although no one can ever verify it). I don't think you'll ever find a reference, however, about a Holy of Holies being in any other temple than the Salt Lake--especially in Google.  I'm changing the wording; let me know if it's acceptable.  Thanks,--Rojerts 20:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Neil A. Maxwell - Mormon Collaboration of the Month
Partially due to your vote, Neil A. Maxwell has been selected as the Mormon collaboration of the month. I look forward to working with you on the article. uriah923(talk) 22:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Doris Day's birthdate
Leon,

Doris Day was born on 4/3/22. This is known by insiders and many Internet sites also list this date. For example, see. http://www.topsynergy.com/famous/Doris_Day.asp. One of my contacts is a woman who is a close friend of a former personal secretary of Ms. Day. I know Ms. Day prefers the date 1924 since this error has not been corrected for decades and she would look foolish correcting it now, but trust me, the year is 1922.

Smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

The Andy Griffith Show statistics
Collecting and organizing is all very well, but you went beyond that to come up with something new and original. Yes, it was interesting, but this isn't the right place to put it (maybe IMDb?). Also, if you're going to call it WP:Trivia, that's also frowned upon. Clarityfiend 22:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Leon: I've reverted the deletion of your information, but removed the "8%", which is the only part which comes close to "original research". Just as observation is observation, and not original research, counting is counting, and also not original research.   I would feel comfortable calculating a percentage as being allowable, but since others are concerned about OR, I thought it was politic to take it out. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  22:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There we have it: the proper way to resolve a contentious edit (discuss with the other editor) and the Ed Fitzgerald way (do what he wants unilaterally, without even giving me any time to respond). In case you haven't already figured it out Leon7, Ed and I have tangled very recently.
 * Anyway, back to my reasoning. According to WP:OR, Wikipedia should not include "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." To me, observing that there are few marriages depicted in a conservative family show qualifies. No other TV shows I've run across does that (not The Waltons, not One Day at a Time) and no social scientists (that I know of) have published anything about it. Now if you could find someone who has, and it wouldn't surprise me if they had, then it would get my wholehearted vote.
 * Sorry about not replying to you six months ago. It must have slipped my mind. Wait a sec. I did respond - it's right at the top of this section! Clarityfiend (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Six months wasn't sufficient time? No matter, rust never sleeps. I do admit to preferring my style of editing, which requires independent thought and consideration of the circumstances and what would be best for the reader, the article and the encyclopedia, to one which consists primarily of looking up rules in a rule book and mechanically applying it to the situation, whether it fits or not.  Perhaps we might call it the nickel-and-dime knee-jerk authoritarian style. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  23:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have no response, then I'm going to delete it again. Contrary to what Ed thinks, whether you call it OR or a personal observation, it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the things that attracted me to WP was the fact that it was, and is, much more than an encyclopedia. If something is deemed to be of interest to the reader of that particular article, I think it should be included, as long as it's in agreement with WP rules and guidelines.  I've looked at OR and Handling trivia and don't see anything that should exclude the lines in question.  Considering the time period that this show was set and filmed in, IMHO, it is very significant, and would be of interest to me, that less than 8% of episodes show married couples together .  I understand that this may look like original research, but all I did was add up 2 numbers and divided it by 249 (the number of total episodes); what could be simpler than that!  I see WP info all the time that have much more research behind them (I would call it compiling information).  This is a great place to come for such information, that you would not find anywhere else. Leon7 (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Leon: As I said above, I think that you can justify what you did without running afoul of either OR or trivia concerns.  Were I in you situation, I would restore the material that's been deleted (by me, in this case), and then if it's challenged, lay out your argument in the talk page. Wikipedia does not advance through rigid and dogmatic application of guidelines as if they were absolute rules, it advances through people doing their honest best to improve the encyclpedia.  Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  21:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, it case it wasn't apparent, that's my opinion about what I think is an appropriate course of action. It goes (almost) without saying that others will vehemently disagree. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  01:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree - Wikipedia is not more than an encyclopedia (at least the articles). It is compiled in a unique way and is much larger that its rivals, but it tries to adhere to the standards of encyclopedias. These criteria do not include being interesting or even useful. Trivia is interesting, and how-to guides are useful, but the former is strongly discouraged and the latter is outright prohibited. Spend some time at WP:Afd and you'll see what I mean. The question is, as I see it, is it notable? Have others noted what you have, and have they published anything about it. Until you can show that this aspect has been noticed, it remains OR.
 * If you're still not convinced, would you abide by the opinions of unbiased editors (WP:3O)? What do you say, Leon7? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Leon, if you'll accept one more piece of unsolicited advice, I'll proffer this: it's fine, of course, to listen to the opinions of other editors, but beware of the attempt to convert a small number of "third opinions", two or three of them, into a "consensus" when they are anything but. There is a tendency for editors to hop to it and respond to requests on their "hot button" issues, so what you get is the views of a couple of folks who are not necessarily unbiased on the issue, and not a true representation of community consensus. I guess all that I'm saying is that if you're not yourself personally convinced that the opinions you're getting represent the views of the Wikipedia community, or if you feel that the issue is important enough in any case, then stick to your guns, and don't allow folks waving the flag of "consensus" to deter you. Again, this is most probably not the advice you'd get from many editors, but that's the way I see it.  Good luck. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  05:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple of observations about trivia …as in trivial; obviously this is a subjective matter. I happen to think that the sentence of our dispute is not trivial at all.  I also noticed that trivia is not necessarily discouraged, but rather, should be incorporated into the flow of the article, rather than have it dangling by itself or in a list.
 * I discovered the lack of marrieds on my own; nowhere else, that I know of, points this out, so I'm kind of attached to it (not that this alone makes it acceptable), and I would be disappointed to have it dropped. Nevertheless, I'm willing to abide by the opinions of impartial editors.  Since I don't have the time or the know-how to pursue this matter properly, I would appreciate it if someone were to submit it for arbitration. If I were to rewrite what I would like to see in the article at this point, it would be something like this: "In spite of it's conservative family values, the show's recurring characters where almost all unmarried (83%), the exceptions being Otis and Emmett. Married couples, as regular or recurring characters, were seen together in less than 8% of the episodes." I imagine there's parts of it that are more acceptable than others, so I'm curious to see what the well-seasoned editors think.  I would hope that this section would be reviewed by whoever, to make the decision better thought through.  I appreciate your thoughts and keeping this discussion civil. Leon7 (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do have one suggestion - the farther you stray from pure observation -- i.e. I see this, I count this, I report this -- and the more you draw a conclusion, the more likely your stuff is to be considered OR. That means you might want to consider dropping the first part of your statement about family values, because when yoked to your observation, it seems POV and ORish. You can achieve the same effect by finding a reliable source that refers to the show's conservative values, putting in that statement with proper citation, and then following up with a completely seperate statement containing your observation, i.e. the counting and simple calculating, with a citation to the datasource you used to count from.  The reader can draw whatever conclusion he or she wants from the juxtaposition, and you have avoided (I think) posting original research, since observation is observation, not OR. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  17:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, I see a distinct difference between trivia and miscellaneous facts or information. One is, by defintion, trivial, and therefore only really encyclopedic in some cases where its volume makes it notable; while the other is interesting or informative nuggets that don't easily fit into the article otherwise.  Many editors see any list of miscellaneous facts as trivia, but that's not the case. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  17:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have posted this to WP:30. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Leon: Just want to point out to you the big message box at the top of the WP:30 page:"This page is not an official policy or a guideline. It is a non-binding informal process through which editors who are currently in content disputes can request assistance from those involved with this project. (Emphasis added.)"No advice from me on how much weight you want to give any opinions that come your way, that rather depends on how strongly you feel you have a good case, but do be aware that WP:30 is, as it says, non-binding. You might also look out for a tendency among editors to interpret guidelines as absolute statements of policy, which they were never intended to be, and are not; and also the tendency for editors to read into guidelines stuff that actually isn't there. Best of luck. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  20:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been whacking away on the Wiki for a couple of years now, and it is my humble opinion that there is nothing wrong with tallying data and summarizing it in an article. Raw information informs us of nothing without context. I compiled the lion share of the List of C-130 Hercules crashes over many months (fifteen percent of ~2,350 hulls), and I can assure you that by the time I reached the end of the tally, I had some definite empirical observations to make about the data. I don't believe that this was "original research", but certainly contributes to understanding the record. Mark Sublette (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Neil Armstrong
Hello Leon7. Did you meet Neil Armstrong? You mentioned that on the talk page of Neil Armstrong. It must have been a great feeling! Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
Please weigh in on the merger proposal between Persons in the Book of Mormon and List of Book of Mormon people. You are receiving this notice since you were identified as a recent editor on one of those pages. Thanks! --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Salbutamol
Hi, Leon, I reverted your edit to "Salbutamol". This is not because your edit was particularly bad, but this is an article without any in-line citations, and it was starting to look very dodgy. If you re-inserted the material with an in-line citation, it would carry some weight: just use <, ref, >, [, http, : to make it Wiki-Legal ... Thank you! cojoco (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Cadence logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Cadence logo.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of United Airlines Flight 663
A tag has been placed on United Airlines Flight 663 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Janus303 (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of United Airlines Flight 663
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is United Airlines Flight 663. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 663. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit to your user page
Pardon my interruption. I just wanted to bring to your attention, in case you don't want it. – Wdchk (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=556218063 your edit] to Granite Flats may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

New users
Hi, Leon. I'm a volunteer with the account creation team. I help others who can't create an account themselves such as students whose school IP is blocked because of vandalism from the IP or deaf persons whose reader can't deal with the CAPCHA and so on. Yes, I create new accounts but they're not for me. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 20:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)