User talk:Leesw

Please do not repost previously deleted articles, as they'll just get deleted again as a repost. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 17:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Batman Begins, Shrek, The Incredibles, Friday Night Lights, and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow don't seem to benefit from having a Christian review. Please review WP:SPAM and WP:LINKS. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "Batman Begins, Shrek, The Incredibles, Friday Night Lights, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow don't seem to benefit from having a Christian review."

It would benefit Christians. Many Christians want to know if the movie is suitable for a Christian audience or if it's something they want to take their children to see. Please respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leesw (talk • contribs) 12:37, December 13, 2006

First of all, you obviously have a vested interest in promoting this particular site, which qualifies the site as spam. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Information that is added should be beneficial to all, not just Christians. Links like yours need to be appropriated by neutral editors to avoid a conflict of interest. If you really still feel that your links should belong on these film articles, visit the talk pages and ask on them if it's appropriate. I'm pretty sure that you'd get a similar answer to mine, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, by saying that the content should be beneficial to all, not just Christians, I'm afraid you are missing what I'm trying to say. If I were asking that all the links listed ONLY be Christian, I would be, as you said, wanting links there that are not beneficial to all. But having one Christian review/viewpoint in the list for visitors who happen to be Christian is hardly spam. It's simply a different critical option among the others. On many of the topics here there are "critical views" and "controversy" information and links. That information is not beneficial to all or common of all beliefs. The reason that information is there is because it is a different view on the topic and allowing visitors the option of viewing it contributes to Wikipedia just as does having a Christian movie review among the secular ones. That gives it balance. I wish you would reconsider your position on this. Thanks. -Lee

I agree with you that a Christian perspective can be contributive, but I don't think these perspectives are always necessary for films like the ones I reverted. You mentioned in your initial message to me that there was a review for The Nativity Story. If you noticed, I didn't touch that. The review is relevant to the context of the film. However, when it comes to movies like Batman Begins and such, the Christian perspective doesn't really expand on critical understanding of these films. I am sure there are already sites that host movie reviews written by Christians for Christians. I have no problem with these reviews being included with relevant content on Wikipedia, but I have to say that what you've tried to add doesn't tie in so well. I'm afraid that I won't consider, and if you still feel strongly about including these reviews, start a discussion on the films' talk pages to see what kind of answers you'll get. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Real Christian Singles

A tag has been placed on Real Christian Singles requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

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 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. II MusLiM HyBRiD II ^{ZOMG BBQ} 22:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have no idea why this would be up for speedy deletion. It, like other pages on here about major dating websites seems to have its place. I've found pages about Plenty of Fish, Match.com, Eharmony, etc. I am working to add references from other sources. Please let me know the status of this and if there is a problem. What needs to be done for that big Speedy Deletion box to be removed? Thanks. -Lee

After taking another look, I think I was too hasty. I've restored the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real Christian Singles

Hi Lee. I saw your note on NawlinWiki's page. I posted to Talk:Real Christian Singles with a note about what's needed on the article itself to help us meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. It would be great if you could take a look there and if possible provide some of the references needed for the article. Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 00:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. What types of references do I need? I've looked at other pages about similar websites (like the Plenty of Fish one) and I can't seem to see what the page is missing. I'd very much appreciate your suggestions. Thanks. User:Leesw

Independent third-party sources - for instances academic research, articles that aren't puff pieces in respected newspapers, and respected books are generally good. The appropriateness of any reference will depend on the situation. For example you said on NawlinWiki's page that RCS is "one of the top five Christian dating website in existence", that sort of claim would probably be best from a publication or website that has a reputation for providing accurately ranked figures in that area.

I took a very cursory skim through the Plenty of Fish article you mention in order to try and give you pointers you'll can relate to. I note that it uses references from The Wall Street Journal, The National Post, Channel 9, and The New York Times. Assuming these are not all simply passing mentions (I haven't gone so far as to check them against the claims in the article or even to read them) - they are the sort of thing that can establish notability from Wikipedia's perspective. Hope that gives you some idea of what's required.

I also suggest you take a look at our welcome page and core policies as they can be useful for anyone wanting to edit the encyclopedia as well as our guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest (we have found at Wikipedia that editors who try to write articles about themselves or organizations/fields they are closely connected with have more difficulty than editors in general - the guidelines try to help guide you in finding the balance between adding your expertise and maintaining Wikipedia's core values and intent). Hope that's helpful. If you have any other questions please feel free to ask. -- SiobhanHansa 19:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I have references on there from About.com and KillerStartUps.com. I'm trying to find the link where it mentions the feature on E-True Hollywood story. Am I listing it right on the Real Christian Singles page? User:Leesw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.255.215 (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lee - you're putting them in the right place. The Killerstartups review isn't really very useful (they're not a particularly well known site and it's a very cursory write up) and an about.com review is fairly low on the ladder from a notability perspective so definitely find that E-True Hollywood one and any others. Substantial national press coverage is definitely one of the most common ways to establish notability so if there are more please find them. In general reviews tend not to be enough (they're generally pretty cursory and very few review sites of web based services have a reputation for impartial and thorough analysis. Feature articles that look at the business rather than the service might be much better if there are any. -- SiobhanHansa 22:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Leesw! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 74 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Joe Beam - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

I noticed your submission in Articles for creation, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leafwood Publishers. Thanks! It will be reviewed by a volunteer soon.

Before it can be added to Wikipedia, your submission should have references. All articles on Wikipedia should have inline, numbered references after facts, showing the 'reliable source' (a newspaper, book, etc.) where the information can be checked, so that all information is verifiable.

Here's a video tutorial - hit play, then right-click for "full screen".

Here's an example of how to add references:

Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref>

He likes tea.<ref> Smith, John. "[http://foonews.com/Article42 Interview with Chzz]", Foo News, 1 April 2010. Retrieved 2011-05-22. </ref>

== References ==

That makes the references automatically display as small numbers^[1] which will link to the details in the section titled == References == at the end. You can see that example in action here.

Please add references to your submission, which will be reviewed as soon as possible. See also, Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. If you need any help, just put {{helpme}} at the end of this page, followed by a question or get into our live help chat chanel at #wikipedia-en-help ^connect.

Best, ChzzBot IV (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leafwood Publishers.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk or via live help

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! mabdul 19:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leafwood Publishers concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leafwood Publishers, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission Leafwood Publishers

Hello Leesw. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Leafwood Publishers.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leafwood Publishers}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leafwood Publishers concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leafwood Publishers, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leafwood Publishers

Hello Leesw. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Leafwood Publishers".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leafwood Publishers}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]