User talk:LeaveSleaves/Archive 5

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 3

2008 Italian Grand Prix

Hi. If you have a moment could you take a look at the above article? Your comments were really useful last time, and if you could give me something like that again that'd be really useful. Cheers, Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 09:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's currently up for a peer review here. Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 04:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not being able to look at it till now. I was busy otherwise. I'll make sure I read through it in next couple of days and leave my comments at the PR. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 04:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I didn't know if you'd seen the message; it's clearly a hectic time at AFD. If you need any assistance with anything in return I would be only too willing to provide it. Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 11:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You said that you had read stuff related to drivers being chicane nervous at Monza. I remember reading stuff like that too, however I'm struggling to find anything now. Do you know of any sources? Aptery gial 04:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd look for them and get back to you. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 05:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No subject

Danite123 (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Hi there, I’m researching an article about Wikipedia, and its editors. I wonder if you I could talk to you about Wikipedia, and how you use it, for a magazine about not-for-profit organisations. If you could spare some time and wouldn’t mind answering some questions by email or phone, please contact me on Bennett.d@hotmail.co.uk, or leave a message here or on my talk page. Many thanks,

Daniel

Danite123 (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

is this one user or multiple ppl (talk)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Good job today. You have been lining up AIV reports almost as fast as I can act on them. Thanks for keeping me busy. :) Trusilver 17:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar

Thanks! That'll fill the hole on my userpage! Apterygial ^talk_stalk^{insane idea} 22:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

WCDB

stop being an assclown —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dav92178 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to seriously work on the article, consider initially working in a sandbox. Don't simply cancel the redirect, add some external links and say you'd work on it at your pleasure. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 15:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

the redirect is a fucking joke. how about leaving the serious article & not being a world class douchbag —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dav92178 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Oj54n6

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		That was actually quite heroic. -- Skarl 13:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of edits

(Livingston North alleged vandalism) I am REMOVING edits which I made to begin with so how can this be vandalism? I am not altering anyone else's input. Forthbridge (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:C#Contributors' rights and obligations and WP:OWN. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 14:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not stopping anyone reposting similar 'common knowledge' information (although the article in question does contain incorrect information) - I am merely removing the content in the format I provided. *Note that I have added substantial information over the years to various pages, and within the last week have mysteriously been stopped from doing so (without logging in) therefore, I feel it is fair that my edits are removed and 'experienced' or regular contributors can replace this information with their own format should they so wish, however, it is not my intention to vandalise, nor do I feel I am doing so - for instance, my edits were seemingly acceptable a week ago yet now, I cannot add or correct edits. Forthbridge (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed edits made by myself and have not altered anyone else's work on this page. Please could you respect my decision to remove my own wording. Having been banned from editing after several contributions, and with no intent to vandalise or distort, due to my IP address, I have decided to remove my contributions which all of a sudden are unwelcome. I am not stopping anyone adding similar common knowledge information. Forthbridge (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel your edits are against the spirit of Wikipedia. When you share and add information, you agree that it would be used freely by any user as long as possible. By removing that information you are demonstrating ownership of articles and claiming copyright for your work. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 14:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Could I then request someone looks at my contributions and re-edits them slightly? AS the edits remain in the history of the page, I feel anyone interested enough can see them, although I am not happy for them to remain as they are. And what changes I have attempted to make, short of deletion, I am unable to do due to my IP address. Forthbridge (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you are insisting on the edits being removed. Anyone who is watching those pages would eventually restore the content you are removing. Changing them slightly also makes no significant difference. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 15:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As I explained, I intended to alter them as I was not happy with the compostition of my wording, retaining the pertinant information, but could not do so because of my IP address supposedly being a source of vandalism. Forthbridge (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I shall attempt to make some minor edits again and see what happens! Forthbridge (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Initial edit complete. Please take time to advise on suitability or acceptability Forthbridge (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

User Edits

Thanks for that. I am attempting to tidy up some of my work. I see that my edits of the Intercity 125 are still extant - however my trimming of the Livingston North information has once again been reverted for some reason. I'm not sure why some things seem to get left and others changed back, as I say I feel the information is the same, but a little more concise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forthbridge (talk • contribs) 18:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Forthbridge (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the best way forward is to engage the user into discussion before continuing with your edits, as you did with me. This can be done on article talk page, so that other interested editors can join in. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 18:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou Forthbridge (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 Brazilian Grand Prix lead

In light of your comments at the Italian GP PR, I've redrafted the Brazilian lead in my sandbox. It's probably not hugely urgent, given how fast it is moving at GAN (no. 27, up 16 places in ten days!) but before I replace it on the article page, could you let me know if it is an improvement on the existing lead? As before, the new on the top, the old on the bottom. Cheers, Aptery gial 07:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User talk:90.195.140.96

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as User talk:90.195.140.96, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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 [[ Talk:User talk:90.195.140.96|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. TN‑X-Man 14:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Umm, whoa. I'm not sure why Twinkle did this. I know that you're not responsible for the content of that IP's talk page and I'm sorry for the hassle. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 14:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hollywoodnorthreport

Is this user spamming in a way that implicates the name? If not, I'd leave them be. At least over that. They seem to have made a fair amount of productive contributions. Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That's why I was rather hesitant to report him. However the spam report indicates there is some hint of spamming. Would you still recommend a username change? Because if the user's intentions are towards constructive contribution, the username might implicate him otherwise. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 14:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Show me the diffs. Daniel Case (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you had a look at the spam report filed by another user? In any case, I'm not implying that the user is in fact spamming. I'm just wondering if the username might cause an unintentional negative impact on user's profile. 16:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Wyatt

you might to note that Ed Wyatt has never actually been head of sports of any broadcasting network. there is no evidence to back this claim. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Manhattan Committee on Freign Relations

I was the one who made this page. The only disputed issue is weather it is connected to the Council on foreign relations or not. I am editing that part out. Everything else is not disputed. It states on the edit page that I can edit below the line!!!! how am I vandalizing anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffjenset (talk • contribs) 19:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edits include blanking the page and removing AfD templates. This is considered vandalism. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 19:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Request box

Sir do not remove it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiddle dee eee (talk • contribs) 20:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Valkyrie

Sleaves, I don't know much about editing, and don't know how to respond to your message, other than editing your page. I apologize for my information on the " Valkarye " Page. I misread informed myself. I saw that it said slated between a certain date, and Februar 2009. I didn't see that it had finnaly been set for Dec 25, and I edited the pages before I saw that. Thankyou for fixing my mistakes, & I look foreward to actually editing some correct information in the future. lol.

Thanks! ^.^—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.248.47 (talk • contribs)

Aryana farshad

I ask that you re-visit the article and advise if I have done enough to address your concern. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have now oversourced the article to address any ethnic and cultural bias. She has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Thank you for voicing your concerns at the AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again commending you on your diligent work, I'm afraid I cannot agree with you on keeping the article. If the discussion results in deciding that provided sources are sufficient for keeping the article, it's quite alright with me. Also please understand that my !vote for deletion is not stemming on exclusion of this person from encyclopedia due to her background and sources, but on evaluating notability of inclusion. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 07:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but she and her works have received "substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". What more might be expected? To even hint that that worldwide coverage is not important because it appeals to only the Iranian community would set a very bad precedent... and does indeed appear an ethnic and cultural bias, even if that is not the intention. I have not looked in at the AfD yet today, but I will begin preparing for a possible DRV. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently she has a notability outside the Iranian community, as I discovered that she received funding directly from Prince Charles for her latest film. Surprised that she got the attention of the English royals. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I have provided that same news story in my own first post in the AfD. If you'd notice the news article is more than 2 years old. This should ideally mean that the said project is complete or at least in motion. But there has been no indication of either being true. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 11:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, you sure did! I feel like such a chucklehead. I had thought more about establishing her coverage from 2000 to 2008 in order to remove any onus of a 2-year-old story without actuallly following up on the link... and found the story independent of your search. However, even without her latest project being finished, the interest fron Charles because of the impression he has of her previous works, speaks volumes toward her notability. And since the article is not about that as-yet-unfinished film, and about her as a filmmaker, the Charles story actually underscores notability. However, I still worry when you seem to feel the extensive and "significant coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject" might not apply if the coverage has a stronger interest from one "select community". With respects, WP:RS does not allow that. Shall I post a question about this subject at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and get input that may assuage your worries? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The Charles story is indeed significant and that's why I mentioned it in the AfD, wondering if someone had details on that. But you see, merely a news that Prince Charles is interested in a certain project can't be seen as significant enough for notability. Of course, if such a project is executed, then that alone would be more than sufficient to satisfy the notability requirement.

Once again, this is my personal view on the issue. As I mentioned before, if the majority of discussion and the closing admin feels that the present number of sources are sufficient to pass the inclusion criteria, I'd welcome the decision. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

One source of notability among many. I'll post a question as the reliable Sources Noticeboard to address your worry that a "select community" might not be enough to establish notability despite the extensive coverage. I'll return in a few minutes with a dirct link so you can address your worries there directly. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's the question to the RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Does the fact that Reliable Sources may be of interest to one .22select community.22 mean they cannot establish notability.3F Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Outreach

WP:OUTREACH now exists in larval stage. Please visit the talkpage to help it pupate. //roux 21:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Visual Kei

It IS queer. Havent you seen how they dress? Stop reverting genuine edits.-Citizen drumstick (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC).

CSD#G4

Speedy Deletion Criterion General #4 requires that the reposted content be essentially identical to the deleted content. Where this is not the case, G4 doesn't apply. Cheers, Wily D 13:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. When the version deleted is entirely unsourced, and the current version has a number of sources, I really can't justify it as a G4. Wily D 13:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Vettaikaran

The film is just announced ! Thats why it is short ! Can you cancle the deletion policy on Vettaikaran.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thulasi12345 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

For future films, there are certain notability requirements listed under WP:NFF. I believe that the film does not pass the requisite notability requirements. If you feel otherwise, please state your reasons at the AfD discussion. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 13:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

hi

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.91.129 (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Multi-Reverts With Huggle

Hullo! How did you do the 8 reverts at once to Lee Cattermole here [1]? I'm still learning Huggle and haven't figured that one out. It was clear that more than one revert was needed, but I could only do the one because the additions were by different editors. Thanks, Geoff ^T ^C 18:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

When you right-click an older edit on the History band at the top of the window, you get the diff with current revision. Reverting then would restore the older revision. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 18:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

08BrazilGP FAC

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to ask this, but you seem to know your way around image policy. Brazil is currently at FAC here, and I think all we are waiting on is an image review. If you don't think it is fair me asking someone to do it, then don't, but otherwise, could you take a look at the images in the article and leave your concerns at the review page? Thanks, Aptery gial 01:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Which image are you specifically talking about? The FAC isn't particularly clear about this. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 02:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

All of them. They should all be under free use (I think they are all from commons), but we need someone to verify that, and that all the correct information is there on the image rationale. Aptery gial 02:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 02:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

One more. File:Circuit Interlagos.svg (the circuit map). Thanks for the help. Aptery gial 02:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For far too much to mention here. For being the first to encourage me to work on an article (a can of worms), providing consistently constructive comments on the articles I do write and just doing so much of the leg work and necessary arguing for F1 articles. Aptery gial 02:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ashbey has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Ashbey_{Happy Holidays} Ӝ 00:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Bukovo

I simply moved the link. --203.221.86.177 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the warning. I've now removed the link. Please don't add it. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 15:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you feel about mops, part 2

Hello LeaveSleaves! I'm sorry that we fell out of touch, I was much busier in Greece than expected, what with the riots and all. Would you like to speak on IRC again soon? GlassCobra 18:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'm now on IRC for another hour or so. Otherwise I'd be online tomorrow from 13:00 UTC onward. Let me know when you are free. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 20:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Gran Torino

The so called plot is not a plot it is the entire movie and will ruin the movie for everyone one. It is irresponsible to allow whet is written to remain on the site. It to too detailed and is not a plot synopsis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.114.85 (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)