User talk:LeaveSleaves/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about User:LeaveSleaves. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Thanks

Ϣere Spiel Chequers is offering you a Wiki Beer! Liquid refreshment promotes WikiHarmony and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the harmony by offering a beer to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Best served refrigerated (not applicable in UK). Temperature and Alcoholic strength varies according to age, religion and geographic location of recipient, US residents below the age of 21 are best advised to keep this beerstar until travelling in a country with less ageist drinking laws. NB This Beerstar is compatible with all known fake IDs

Thanks for wiping that vandalism off my user page, Ϣere Spiel Chequers 17:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Thing is i forgot to log in to my account before making edits on the user page.(regarding edits on user page TusharN.) Also, i want to delete my account, how do i do so ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.186.16 (talk • contribs)

Make sure you log in before blanking your talk page. Also, deletion of account is not permitted on Wikipedia, see WP:U for details. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 14:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting word-bombing on my userpage. By the way, आप्ल्याला पन् मराठी येते! ;)- Unpopular Opinion (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Are Wa!! ^LeaveSleaves _talk 15:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks :), i was confused, best regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User needs blocking?

I'm not sure how it's done but the user you reverted on Buffy Sainte-Marie has done nothing but similar vandalism in all contributions. Perhaps you know how to report this?Smkolins (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally the user has been blocked. Normally a user is warned for four times before being reported to WP:AIV where appropriate action is taken. You can find information on warning the users here and more detailed information on countering vandalism over here. Let me know if you need any further information on this. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 18:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I know generally there are rules but haven't learned the particulars and processes. I try to focus more on creating articles most of the time and sometimes get into revert vandals. I've not gotten into blocking.Smkolins (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

deleted my link?

received a notice that my link was deleted from letterman jacket page becuase is was cosiderred advertising. however, all of the rest of the links on that page are linked to re-sellers of these jackets. please advise why mine would be deleted. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwae (talk • contribs) 18:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned out the commercial links from the article in question. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, GraemeL!! ^LeaveSleaves _talk 18:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

GA!

And to you. That was a pretty rough GAN. I guess we need to decide where we want to go from here (peer review, CE, etc.). I notice the FIA has made its decision making more open. We could find a reference and add that as a consequence of the GP. Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 23:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Heikki Kovalainen

Left a summary with the link to the source. Could you check it before reverting edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.245.231.167 (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I checked the source. You are grossly manipulating facts while adding the information. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 01:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Hey man sorry about that. I feel bad.

jcozza —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcozza (talk • contribs) 17:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

IP address hacker

I believe that my IP address is being used without my permission by someone else on Wikipedia. They have made many edits that I do not know of. My username is Wikipedian1234. What can I do to get rid of this unknown person?-(63.148.74.227 (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC))

The WHOIS for your IP indicates that it is part of dynamic IP address range. This would mean that you share this IP with other people who are part of your network. I'd suggest not to worry about warnings personally and continue using your username instead. If you are seriously concerned about contributions made from this IP you can see if your network admin can help you in checking who is using this IP maliciously. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The rDNS indicates that it is a static allocation (63-148-74-227.dia.static.qwest.net). I ran a port scan and the machine appears to be a server. It's running web services and MS terminal Server amongst others. Terminal server may indicate that it is shared. Another thing to consider would be an insecure wireless router. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'll look into that, thanks-(96.241.126.77 (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC))

Wentworth Miller

I am in full agreement that the Wentworth Miller article is nowhere near B-class status, but can you please leave a list of improvements to be made so that editors may begin to work on the article in order to raise its status? – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 08:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've left some suggestions on the article's talk page. Feel free to ask if you need any more help. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 12:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Bethmanns and Rothschilds

Hey, I saw your response to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bethmanns_and_Rothschilds and I went searching for some sources and I believe I found enough to show that it isn't pure OR. And since your delete was "weak" I figured you might want to check it out and see if it changes your vote or not. Anyway thanks and seeya. --Banime (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the challenge for you would be to incorporate these changes into the article and see if that addresses concerns raised by other editors. I'm afraid until I see how these new sources improve the article, I wouldn't change my opinion. Also remember that the deletion is not decided on voting but based on arguments provided during discussion, so it isn't necessary that you get majority votes, as long as you provide necessary reasoning. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 01:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I replied

Here. :P D.M.N. (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Matrudevobhava

Went to Wikipedia:Requested moves and it explained just how easy it was to do. And here I thought it was going to be something difficult... another of the many Wiki mysteries. Thanks for offering to assist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, LeaveSleaves. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gilles Simon

Hi, I noticed you uploaded a new Gilles Simon picture on Commons. I had actually contacted the author of the picture a few days ago, asking him to release this photo and several others, saying to him I would crop them. He answered to me saying he agreed to the release of the pics, but specifically asking to "cut off the CITI BANK's Logo" because the pictures were "for business". Since that's exactly what you did, I wondered if you had talked to the user, too.
Anyway, I wanted to ask, how did you do to upload that picture directly cropped ? I thought that to have a cropped picture, you had to upload the original, create a modified version, and then eventually suppress the original ? Cheers, --Oxford St. (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea you already had a talk with that flickr user. I simply found those pictures under required license and uploaded them.

As for cropped images, there is not need to upload the original image. Under cc-by and cc-by-sa licenses you can modify the images as long as you provide appropriate licensing for the image. Of course, you have to upload these images manually. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 13:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, one last thing - this question has probably something to do with me being completely clueless about image modifications, but : I have tried to crop this pic, by first saving the image on my computer, cropping it with a program, and then manually uploading it to Commons. The result looks pretty bad, compared to your crop of the Simon picture. I realize that the Simon file is 43KB, and the Zimonjic one 13KB, which probably accounts for the pixelated look, but is there not a way to have a better version - or did I do something wrong ? --Oxford St. (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You did nothing wrong. The original images have low resolution and hence the crops have even less. I tried out cropping the same image you mentioned, but since the result wasn't that good, I decided not to upload it. Same is the case with cropping this image. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 15:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Dedication 3?

Where are you getting your info that it comes out tomorrow and not today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.124.120 (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which edit you are talking about. Could you be more specific? ^LeaveSleaves _talk 01:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

WHY DID YOU DELETE MY REVISION

HUH? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.103.174 (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which edit you are talking about. Could you be more specific? ^LeaveSleaves _talk 01:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your recent intervention on Antiochian Catholic Church in America--Midnite Critic (talk) 03:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Happy to help!! ^LeaveSleaves _talk 03:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

2008 Brazil GP

[1] How it was before, there was a bit of blank space. No biggie moving it, I guess... D.M.N. (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was okay earlier. There was a link to detailed results at FIA. Plus commons and wikinews are actually external links and not references. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, guess so. If you want to change it back, change it back. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oi!

Shiny thing!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For plaguing AIV with valid reports. I can't remember ever having to refuse one of your block requests. Keep reverting those vandals. GraemeL ^(talk) 17:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did you change my revision of Richard Beardsons wikipedia page?

Im sorry but i dont understand. Could you tell me why here please? Much appreciated, Ben. xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.88.168 (talk • contribs)

Because you are vandalising the page. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 18:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? im correcting it :S Ben xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.88.168 (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

heman waz up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddevil 247 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

SR2 Protection

LeaveSleeves, want me to get protection re-instated on Saints Row 2 page? DJ MeXsTa (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm a recent changes patroller and not a contributor to the article. My reversions to the page were through huggle. But considering the persistent vandalism on the page, I think that might be a good idea. Cheers! ^LeaveSleaves _talk 00:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

deletion discussion on Stingray Sam

Hi LeaveSleeves, and thanks for your note. There's no need to apologize at all -- we're on the same page. I simply wanted to clarify that I'm not merely on DrWho42's posse. I wish I knew why I'd been invited to that discussion in this first place. Anyway, all best to you! --Lockley (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal Vendetta

LeaveSleaves, I believe you seem to have a personal vendetta against me and will be looking to take this further up with Wikipedia. You have deleted a lot of my posts, some with good valuable external links that only increase the information avaliable to visitors. It adds to their learning experience and the links are neither personal or fansites. I believe you need to consider your motive for doing this as I agree rules are there for a reason but it if aids what is avaliable to the visitor or Wikipedia user then that can only be of benefit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennis Expert5 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no personal vendetta against you. I've only removed your addition of links to certain website that does not meet guidelines set. I've previously had a discussion with another editor on the same issue where I explained why exactly this is not a valid link. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 18:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Reading that previous thread, LeaveSleaves, I can think of one perfectly viable reason why the previous user claimed to have created an article attributed to this user. :) GlassCobra 19:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have thought of that reason. But I can't say it out loud. At least not yet. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 19:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned, there has been no prohibited actions done by the account(s) as of yet; speculation and deductive logic would suggest that these two, at least, are the same person. In this case, we should advise this user to stick to just one account, rather than take any punitive action. He or she should also be pointed to the discussion at WT:TENNIS that you linked me to so that they may argue the case for their site. GlassCobra 19:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I had informed (at least the other user) about the thread I started on WT:Tennis. And I had started the thread primarily because of similar accusations by that user. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 19:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

LeaveSleaves, you argue the case that it does not meet the guidelines, but in what sense? It is clear that the website is an information resource website for tennis, offering information about a host of different topics to do with the tennis. To me it is of a good standard and contains no bias. The purpose of Wikipedia is to educate visitors about a chosen topic of their choice. Now the external links section has the sole aim of giving those users further links to explore. Now I agree rules have to be in place and clearly fansites or commerical ventures out for advertising their site have no place or add value. However the site I have given reference to simply does 'add value'. Its add further information not on Wikipedia which is factual. Just because it does not have official endorsement as the ATP or WTA does not make the site any less efficient. As you can see from my contributions I have not spammed Wikipedia but added value and given links as and where are appropriate. You will also see I have written various articles on tennis as is my interest in the sport and again chosen links which offer the best information. I do not want to get into a feud but I would suggest that the case is reviewed amongst other people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennis Expert5 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, have you taken a moment and read the earlier discussion I pointed out to you? There I have explained why the said website would not qualify as a valid external link, viz. "The site you are referring is a commercial site of a marketing group with no official connection any of the tennis organizations. Plus it provides very little information, which itself is outdated and not updated". As an external link, the site must provide significant amount of additional information on the person along with clarity on where the information was obtained and its verifiability. However if you do feel that I am being overly biased in my opinion, I can suggest you to visit the tennis wikiproject and consult group of other editors with same interest on whether the website you are suggesting is valid external link. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 03:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Stepping Stones Theater

Good catch on that one. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and no problem!! ^LeaveSleaves _talk 03:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Madagascar 2

When you are looking at the box office figures ,obviously what you want to next is whether it was a financial success or not.And to know that ,you need to know the budget of the film. --Roaring Siren (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The details regarding budget belongs to section that deals with production and not reception. Plus, your concept is already neatly covered in the infobox, which lists both budget and revenues side by side. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 13:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Now why should this article be deleted exactly? Hm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianeee (talk • contribs) 07:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason your article deleted (twice) was because, in first case it was blank (see WP:CSD#G7) and in second case it was deleted under WP:CSD#A7. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 07:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikien Empire

It is probably me missing something, but couldn't that have been G4ed? — neuro^(talk) 07:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No, thank you for taking action. :) — neuro^(talk) 08:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at Presidio mutiny

... which should take care of Michael Bunch. Mangoe (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Especially since his name isn't Michael! Mangoe (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you please give this a second look?

Hello! Sorry to bother, but can you please revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upstairs at The Gatehouse? I have rewritten the article that is up for AfD and it is completely different from the spammy offering that was put up for deletion purposes. I would like you to reconfirm that the article, in its new state as a brief stub, still deserves deletion. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for trolling

Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.166.94 (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Fran11c

I have just warned this user about creating pages. I didn't want to report him to AIV without a warning, but if he keeps it up I think it'll be necessary. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Just reported. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. I was just going to. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 20:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked! I'm adding his talk page to my watchlist so if he starts fooling around again in 12 hours I'll know it. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll monitor it too. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 20:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You just got imnpersonated

This diff refers. I have raised this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unusual_edit_by_new_user. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking such a prudent action. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 11:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Sandeep Unnikrishnan (AfD discussion)

After much prodding and pushing, people have finally started citing sources. Please revisit the discussion and read and evaluate the sources. Show the single-purpose accounts and novice editors how established Wikipedia editors will have a proper AFD discussion, focussed upon looking for, citing, reading, and evaluating sources. You'll have to navigate a lot of irrelevant chatter to find the citations, and the actual discussions thereof, but I've tried to make them prominent. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I second that! Uncle G has done a great job. It does require a little determination to wade through the clutter, though. IN the end we need to get to a correct evaluation of the article and consensus, which can only be done if common sense prevails. Note that I am not lobbying for any particular outcome. Consensus is consensus. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I admire both of you for your courageous and tireless job to keep the discussion coherent and to inform the new and anon users. Although I'd try and help with the clerical activities such as adding unsigned templates and maintaining chronological order etc., I won't be instructing each and every new user on Wikipedia policy. I find that complete waste of my editorial time. A person visiting an AfD discussion should ideally have understanding of basic policies and if there are couple of strays in the discussion, I do get myself involved to inform users of their misunderstandings. But when you are dealing with multitude of editors, I find individual iteration of Wikipedia policies impractical. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 03:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No Problem

Glad to do it. BTW, looking at the history, I'd say an update of the vandalism counter was in order. Ulric1313 (talk) 07:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I am planning to do it tomorrow! ^LeaveSleaves _talk 07:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)