User talk:LE
|
Good morning
[edit]I don't have any particular stake in the question, but I was wondering why you rv van Andel-Schipper back to van Andel. Andel-Schipper is the name she called herself, and (although English convention for maiden-name/married-name combinations is the reverse of the Dutch), every English report I've seen regarding her death has used her full name. Is there something I am missing? Xoloz 08:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Can I just point out to you that long-held consensus at the above article does not allow subject names to be piped away from the names in question. Your edit to the entry for Heather Heyer contravenes that consensus, so has been reverted. Paradoxically, a Heather Heyer redirect to another relevant article IS allowable, and I have made sure the entry stays true to that article editing principle. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 18:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- In answer to your reply on my talk page: If your position then is that she should not be included there at all, why did you just pipe her entry and not merely remove her boldly? My reversion was entirely correct as regards the consensus achieved over many years of the Deaths pages - that names alone are not supposed to be piped to redirect to an article so far removed from the subject name. Piping of "subjectname (profession/year)" to achieve "subjectname" is the only piping agreed on where names of entrants are concerned. Piping within the information attached to the subject's entry (such as awards, recognition and the like) is allowable per usual conventions. But, in a nutshell, I would ask why you did not delete if you believe her not to be of enough notability to be included. Please note that there is also a section open on this matter at Talk:Deaths in 2017#Heather_Heyer which you can use to further discuss this issue. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 22:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- Can I also add the fact that the many redlinks you see littering the current Deaths month come about because entries are allowed there without an article already existing. Thirty days grace is allowed so that the eminently notable can have an article written about them posthumously, while the barely notable (Heather Heyer, for instance) are removed if still a redlink after one month. There is enough internet reportage on her, and a plethora of results for her in Google searches, for editors to argue her very basic notability, not on the basis of what she has ever achieved during life but on the basis of her anecdotal prominence after death and in the manner of her passing. (If Heyer's bluelink proves still to be a redirect after thirty days and not a dedicated biographical article, then she will certainly be removed during routine "culling".) Ref (chew)(do) 22:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- Events have conspired to make our exchange of views redundant, as is the case regarding the Deaths Talk Page section covering it. Her name, reduced to a non-notable redlink, has been removed from the list of deaths by another editor. Thanks for the input anyway. Ref (chew)(do) 23:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]
Hello, LE. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
You should move the places of the state leaders, to match the numbering. GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok....
[edit]i know you undid my revision, so i am not going to edit it again, so we do not make an edit war. peace! Thewinrat (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Alex Datcher for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alex Datcher 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Datcher until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, LE. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in Longevity. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 27
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alternative successions of the English and British crown, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anne of York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Royal Navy Admirals
[edit]Thank you so much for all the work on the List of Royal Navy admirals page. Both for making notes in the talk page (very useful), but most of all for adding a lot of admirals to the list itself. Your work has made the list much more representative (and thus relevant). Takvaal 15:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The list is getting quite long, and I wonder if we should divide it, to make more sub-headlines. An obvious place to do this would be when they changed from the colour appointments to the Admiral/Admiral of the Fleet. Or it could be done by century. Do you have any preferences? Do you know who was the last admiral to be appointed admiral of the blue, and who was the first to be a 'mere' admiral? Takvaal 11:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Just a quick note to say I decided against dividing the list. It is getting long, but the sort function will not work if it´s divided. Takvaal 16:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Admirals of the Fleet
[edit]Hi - Just in case you have not seen this on my talk page...I have a copy of Heathcote's book The British Admirals of the Fleet . On page 2. it says "There was no admiral of the red by that title until 1805 when this rank was introduced to give admirals of the white a better chance of promotion than that provided by the single post of admiral of the fleet". Sounds a good source to me. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well done on finding the London Gazette! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Peerage etc.
[edit]Thanks for the message - I am wondering if I know you from years ago in a different place? Espcially given your username.
Regarding the Earl of Ilchester - I have heard from my newsgroup that the Lord Stavordale has died (which we were previously unaware) according to Debretts. I am aware that this would affect my lists regarding titles with no/few heirs. Regarding the 7th Marquess of Downshire - his enterring the House of Lords was "surely later" as I have seen evidence that Lord Romily was considered the longest serving Lord during Lord Downshire's service in the House, meaning that Lord Downshire entered the House after him, and that was surely after 1918 (1920 at the earliest) - I've never conclusively resolved that, and did rescue the list after it was deleted from the Father of the House article. --New Progressive (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Dispute resolution notice board
[edit]Hello I am letting you know I will be filing a notice initially at with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding Wikipedia:Ownership of content and in particular Wikipedia:Ownership of content/Multiple-editor ownership regarding the original article the List of Royal Navy admirals who's scope you altered and additions and sources I have been adding to the new List of Royal Navy admirals (1707-current) which both you and the other editor are removing.--Navops47 (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Navops47: I'm a volunteer at DRN. A complaint solely about ownership of content will not be accepted at DRN as that is a conduct matter and DRN does not handle conduct matters. While a filing only addressing the content issues in question and not referring to any editor's conduct might be filed, DRN requires extensive discussion about the dispute at the article talk page and, unless I'm missing it (which is possible), that discussion has not occurred. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- @TransporterMan: thanks for your feedback I thought initially an RFC maybe better and there has been ongoing in depth discussions at Talk:List of Royal Navy admirals (1707-current) see section 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14.--Navops47 (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Footballers
[edit]Sorry for reverting your eminently correct change. I looked too quickly, and thought you had done the exact opposite for what you were absolutely right to do. Rcb1 (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)rcb1
North Korea
[edit]I see you are quite interested in North Korean politics. I'm a regular reader of KCNA news and was sincerely surprised by Kim Yong-nam's removal. You noted that Choe Yong-rim (and Kim Yong-ju) are not in the list of Deputies. Well, both of them are Honorary Vicepresidents of the SPA Presidium. Is it implicit they mantained this honorary role? I'd be very astonished if their deaths would not get announced by mainstream media. Kim Yong-ju is the brother of Kim Il-sung, he is said to have bad relationship with Kim Jong-un, but his complete absence from the political scene in the last 4 years is quite worrying (for him) on health ground. A bit out of this topic, don't you find it strange no article celebrated Hyun Soong-jong's 100th birthday? --Folengo (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't have many sources.Does one have to be a SPA member to be an honorary vice president?...are the statutes on this accessible?Would reelections be announced?How regularly does KCNA keep track of deaths?...I remember a comment perhaps from you that a long time had gone by since they had done so.LE (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sincerely NK Leadership Watch is not much updated. Last time they listed the Presidency of the Presidium (that was in July 2016) they said all four North Korean on the list took part to the meetings. KCNA announced no notable deaths in 2017 (only Kang Ki Sop in January) but last year has seen the departure of three major players: Kim Yong-chun, Ju Kyu-chang and Kim Chol-man. Choe and Kim have the highest charge in the state after Kim Jong Un and (now) Choe Ryong-hae, it would be shocking if they don't get a state funeral. We'll see...--Folengo (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- People sometimes vanish from the public eye and their fate stays unknown.Did we ever find a death date for Ri Kun-mo?...should we really assume longtime defense minister Kim Il-chol (not on the SPA and unheard from in the Kim Jong Un era) is still alive? LE (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note that I am no longer permitted to edit.LE (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I hope you can read this anyway. Ri Kun-mo is dead, but we don't know the exact date. 2001 seems the most likely year. There is no reason to think Kim Il-chol has died. Both Kim Yong-ju and Choe Yong-rim have been removed from their posts during this reshuffle. Both still alive, but for how long? We just have to wait.... --79.24.121.252 (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sincerely NK Leadership Watch is not much updated. Last time they listed the Presidency of the Presidium (that was in July 2016) they said all four North Korean on the list took part to the meetings. KCNA announced no notable deaths in 2017 (only Kang Ki Sop in January) but last year has seen the departure of three major players: Kim Yong-chun, Ju Kyu-chang and Kim Chol-man. Choe and Kim have the highest charge in the state after Kim Jong Un and (now) Choe Ryong-hae, it would be shocking if they don't get a state funeral. We'll see...--Folengo (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Stop canvassing
[edit]
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Surtsicna (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- As if your attacks on articles are anything but canvassing? LE (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Surtsicna (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
April 2019
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)