User talk:Lexein/Archive 1

Ulrich Roth
Hello!

Concerning the edit in Ulrich Roth - it wasn't my edit but 70.51.150.21 who edited it.

-- hede2000 22:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page
I have replied to the comment that you left on my talk page. You may view it here. Please make all replies onto my talk page, as I will not be monitoring your talk page. --Адам12901 Talk 07:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Lexein. I have replied your question abour Copyright violation, Thank you, you indicated the miswording. I have corrected it, although I do not understand the term OCRed. (At Wiki, there are many meanings of OCR, and none of them look suitable.) dima 06:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

re your rv copyvio on a Talk page
Perhaps, but it seemed to be in good faith and there was a lot of vandalism this morning, so there wasn't really very much time for warnings for those who weren't vandalizing. --Rory096 22:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Shaun the Sheep
Well done for your work, sounds much more NPOV, more formal. Once again, well done. --Jatkins 10:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Lyle123
If you see another one of this user's sockpuppets, report it to WP:AIV and note that it is a sock of User:Lyle123. Thanks! NawlinWiki 14:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

moonshell
Lexein - I'm back from my holiday and seen your feedback on why moonshell is failing to meet the notability criteria. I'll mail some of my favourite podcasts/bloggers and get them to talk about moonshell. Will a citation from one of these be sufficient. Klynchk 19:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've responded on your user page --Lexein 23:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing, I just found these cool stat numbers:

users:

pages:

files:

articles: --Lexein 23:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Your advice regarding Deva Victrix
Thanks for your advice. I have indeed tried to contact the editor both by email and by message on the relevant talk page. I did this back in February/March after which time I tagged to article as unreferenced. I got no response to either message to the editor. Hence my question and plea for what to do next. The external links are not really an issue here, though they are possibly a different issue, and the three references supplied are quite difficult to obtain. So far, no one has been able to check them. But in any case, some substantial parts of the article are concerned with supposed facts that have come to light only after the date of publication of the most recent reference. The actual use of the "[1]" in the second line of section 2 of the article is odd, and it could indicate that that particular content has been copied from one of the references, and, if true, would cast some doubt on the other stuff which is, as yet, uncheckable. I have had no response either from WikiProject Archaeology who have the other temnplate on the page (given that I added both the Cheshire and the England ones). So, my feeling is that, although we can clean up some of it, by rewriting and using references we do have easily to hand, most of it is uncheckable in its current state, and so could eventually be removed. Whether that is best done piecemeal or by requesting the article's deletion and starting again is another issue. Thanks for the comments. DDStretch   (talk)  23:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

note to self
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lexein/Talk:Gizmo_Logic_Studios_Inc.  the-numbers.com boxofficemojo.com

[Citation Needed] alternate= ?
Instead of this, [citation needed]  I want this.'' ?  That's a superscripted question mark in red, no brackets, no text, which  opens the article for editing'' at that section when clicked. Yeah, just like a missing article.  This (a) invites an editor to find a source, (b) keeps reading easy, and (c) is not an invitation to delete. Of course some blather should be loudly tagged blather, but in an article where _I've_ put in hours of work, and I just can't find a decent source for something I _know_ I read somewhere, help me out, you bastard. Discuss here, please. --Lexein 07:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

cn2

re: MTorrent/UTorrent move
There is an established process for requesting page moves. You need to use WP:RM as I told Dr. WTF (the one who made the copy-n-past change). If there is consensus for the move, it will be made. I do not have a stake in this article and do not care what the title is. However, I do care that our policies are followed. Reverting an improper copy-n-paste move is not "once again obstructing common sense, and consensus" especially since I've never been involved in this before. I would recommend that you calm down on the rhetoric and demands. In the long run, it is counter-productive. -- JLaTondre 20:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment
I heard you like to harass people. Is it true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.115.102.1 (talk • contribs) 2007-05-03T18:02:20
 * No. See my User:Lexein page. I want WP pages to be improved by editing, and I suppose I can be considered an "inclusionist".  I do trim and copyedit, and do not delete appropriate cited NPOV content.  I'm not an admin, and I do not "own" any articles.  Thanks. --Lexein 05:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Opencola
The grievous errors of fact in dates you introduced when "copyediting" have been corrected. Don't vandalise pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.103.37.2 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-10T15:47:53
 * Calm down, and join the team. The edits I performed were in good faith, and were correct save the two years - oops. Review my edit history before chiding me for vandalism. I never vandalise. Also, have some pride, read the instructions and sign your comments,.    --Lexein 18:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning
If you revert ^demon's page again, I'll block you - this ammounts to harrassment. If you have an issue, take it to an admin board.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  17:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither reversion nor harrassment occurred. I restored a discussion from archive, to continue the discussion. Then I realized (looking at the edit history) ^demon was in the process of desysoping, and archiving everything.  So I copypasted the discussion to my private notes page instead. This was all in good faith, warranting neither warning, nor accusation.--Lexein 19:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:RTBM-07-08-24.PNG)
Thanks for uploading Image:RTBM-07-08-24.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Differences between film and musical versions of The Proudcers
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Differences between film and musical versions of The Proudcers, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Differences between film and musical versions of The Proudcers is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Differences between film and musical versions of The Proudcers, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 08:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:RTBM-07-08-24.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:RTBM-07-08-24.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

citation needed tags
this is a really really old discussion, but i just noticed you commented on my talk page in april about citation needed tags. let's discuss this! yes!

wikipedia needs verifiability and citations, there's no debating that. however the citation needed tag is pointless and a distraction: editors who see no citation should find one, and if in good faith none can be found, delete the "fact" and/or discuss the verifiability with the original editor. ALSO citation needed tags themselves are almost never in good faith, because if you follow the tags to their inevitable conclusion (putting it on all unsourced material) it's look a little like the article i copied and edited on my user page. have a look!

death to lazy editing! Friendship hurricane 17:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Easter eggs
Supposedly you're against edit wars, so feel free to contribute with a valid reason why they should be included. Talk:ΜTorrent --Saber Excalibur! 15:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --Lexein (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Winamp0.20a.PNG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Winamp0.20a.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why I edit movie articles

 * Most good movie articles (those which have been Featured) have a one-sentence intro. Please leave it in, and leave it short, factual, and non-spoilerish.
 * The "plot" section is stenchfully ripe for trimming. The best movie articles have no separate Plot section at all, instead weaving it lightly into an encyclopedic presentation of the film's notable (as written about by others!) features.
 * Wikipedia is not a cribsheet for films, listing every single plot detail so people too lazy to watch a movie can claim they did.
 * Wikipedia is not a spoiler wiki.

I think Plot sections, if they exist at all, should be breezy and just touch on the high points. I've seen many, many Plot sections grow to ridiculous lengths. How about that, New Wave Reductionists? I now agree with you about the bulk of Plot sections, whereas I once did not. Keeping the good faith, and not owning articles - Lexein (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Google-hosted news stories
"Google hosted" news articles expire too quickly, and aren't archived by http://web.archive.org It's better to spend a minute seeking articles on a more persistent newspaper or tv station website. --Lexein (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

kozmo.com photo
Hello Lexein. I have a photo of a kozmo.com delivery in action in Portland, from January 2001. The delivery driver was on a scooter, so he's wearing an orange motorcycle helmet, orange bike bag, etc. A couple of logos are visible. He's handing off a gift item at a birthday party. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm unable to add the photo to the kozmo.com article. Let me know you you'd like the photo. iharnish at bizjournals dot com. Ianharnish (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Ian 3/18/2010 --Lexein (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I see your username is in red, meaning you don't have a userpage. To create it, just click on your name in the link above and follow the instructions.
 * 2) The best approach is to make a few good faith edits to become an established user - cleaning up references is one good thing to do.
 * 3) Then you'll be able to upload the image as its author. Keep in mind, you'll be required to release it under the GPL (and optionally CC) as shown in this example

Arctic Silver
Yeah, I know, I've been kind of all over this article. I'm not a deletionist, but I am for high quality. So yeah, it bugs me when IP (anonymous) users who don't summarize their edits trash a bunch of sourced content. Discussion welcome, but that hasn't happened either. --Lexein (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I got your message on my talk page. I'll see what I can find.  I think one of the bottles is merely high-concentrate citric acid. --KJRehberg (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Flags
The instructions on Infobox television state that flags in infoboxes may "emphasise the nationality" of a television series (or TV film in this case). There are other reasons, such as the manual of style at WP:MOSFLAG, as well as related styles like WP:OVERLINK. Generally though, it's all about aesthetics. WP:TV would probably have a more thorough explanation than I can give you. Bradley0110 (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged, though I fear that such PC-ness will ultimately destroy us all. Fact is, anyone who can be provoked by a flag will be just as provoked by a country's text name. Doesn't mean we should bend to their prejudices. But whatever. --Lexein (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

About dates & why I de-link and de-template them
WP:MOSNUM#Linking_and_autoformatting_of_dates

Templating or linking of dates will be removed in body text, but infobox guidelines will be observed. I'll boldly use ISO dates where they will save space in references, especially in accessdate. ISO dates are in common use in international professional circles, and so it shall be here. Time for WP to grow up. --Lexein (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: Be Here To Love Me
I can't do that, sorry. I don't own the DVD, but I know that such a question is answered in either the commentary or accompanying interviews, which is why I left a comment in the article for future editors/researchers instead of just removing the original research tag. If it seems important enough I can suggest just citing the film along with a comment explaining that the time and location are still needed. As far as the parenthetical comments go, it's just a grammar thing; it has nothing to do with how true it is and doesn't imply anything different than your edits. Putting that inside parenthesis is just more grammatically correct than the way you had it before (sorry). However, if you really don't like it, there could be other ways to rewrite the sentence, although I'm almost positive that any further editing would require a complete rewrite of the sentence, as opposed to just editing parts of it. If you choose to, please respond on my talk page, as I will not be watching yours. --GitarooMan (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Idiocracy
Thanks for fixing Idiocracy, I wasn't really sure how to deal with that. Mjpresson (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

fyi
bots come along now and then and fix dead links. best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. I haven't seen that happen - any examples? Which bots?  --Lexein (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is some background: Linkrot.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)