User talk:LeilaniLad/Archive1

Journey Page

Are you planning to add an item to the discussion page of the Journey article explaining why you added the NOR tag? I'm not disputing the validity of the tag but you should start a discussion so that the editors can consider how to change the article to satisfy NOR.Dave Golland (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I was editing at work and it slipped my mind. I usually follow up with concrete evidence to support my tagging of WP:NOR (see Trainspotting for example). I have added the motivation for the tagging to the talk page. LeilaniLad (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC

AfD

95% of the time, I would agree with you (and see my previous AfD closings, and contributions to the Episodes and Characters RFAR for details), however, I judged that this particular article demonstrated enough real-world notability - just - to survive. Black Kite 16:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

Hi there; a short time ago you made a vandalism report on this page. Unfortunately you did not give the name or IP of the vandal, nor the page he was vandalising. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem. I'm not criticising, just need to know the ID of the vandal so that I can deal with him/her. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed AIV report

Regarding this AIV report, I've had to remove it, as it was malformed, and no username was on the report to be able to investigate the report. After a brief discussion, we suspect there may be a bug in your vandalism patrol software that caused the malformation. If you still know the username, please feel free to re-report, and we will look into it. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 11:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your VandalProof Application

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, LeilaniLad. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. β^_command 04:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunder Mifflin

It's long past now, but I just wanted to let you know that I don't hold any grudges over the Dunder Mifflin deletion discussion. I was in your position once; I mounted some deletion drives (my little crusade once summer was the many unsourced, likely nn articles on drinking games. I got about half of them deleted) but since then I've backed off. Your nomination did result in considerable improvements to a then-rather disorganized and poorly-sourced article; exactly the sort of collaborative dialectic by which Wikipedia works. I understand and accept that you have the best interests of the project in mind. Daniel Case (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bsb

i have reverted your change due to the fact you removed a relevant genres as well you are welcome to come back and make your change but please refrain from removing genres--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but going over a history of your edits it seems you remove many changes that were made following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. While the enthusiasm is welcome, please take the time in the future to determine why a change was made before reverting it. If you felt the change in genre was justified, you should have just added that change by itself after I reverted the changes you made that were in violation of Wikipedia's policies on biographical information. LeilaniLad (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC) (added to keep track of dialog). LeilaniLad (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i reverted your change because you also changed genre no need to get snippy or take offence--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility?

At Talk:Wood, you called a comment of mine incivil. I'm curious about what in particular was uncivil about it, since I didn't mean for it to be uncivil. Would you let me know if there's a way I could have said what I did better? Thanks, {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 05:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim

Regarding the edits by Tofusando: He is a sock of a blocked user (See User:Angry Shoplifter). We do not allow them to edit under any circumstances. I do apologise for any "bad reverts" I may have made. I will go through my revisions and check/correct any errors. Thanks for bringing this to my attention! :-) Utan Vax (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for rollback

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I figured Simon would get more than 10 minutes :D

It's just not Wikipedia without Simon the Unicorn. Imagine the horror if we deleted one pokemon article :D -- Tawker (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Conflict

You reverted my rollback and warned me instead! Ennber of Light (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Science

I used the word sect not in a negative way or in the christian - heretical -definition. But a smaller group who's philosophy differs from the mainstream which in this case it does. 74.73.176.161 (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great!74.73.176.161 (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding

Just to let you know that I was actually reverting vandalism on the Lincoln Heights article. Someone added a g to the episode list, which shouldn't have been there. With all the vandalism that article has been getting lately, you just got confused. Just wanted to let you to know. Rosario lopez (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

talkback

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

--RedHillian | Talk 03:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McConnell Air Force Base revert

I have replied to your message left at User talk:208.81.184.4#McConnell Air Force Base -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I don't understand what you mean

What I did is change "Reorganization Agent of Korean History" into "Korean History Compilation Committee". There is no such a page called "Reorganization Agent of Korean History." It is "Korean History Compilation Committee now. That Reorganization something is redirected to Korean History Compilation Committee. Using an old name does seems no good. Please do not revert my edit again. I don't understand at all why you say my edit was unconstructive. I think using an old name is unconstructive.--Pronti Via (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is "Huggle"?--Pronti Via (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supremo106

I'd like you to reconsider your revert of Supremo106 (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orange & Bronze Software Labs and your final warning. Supremo106 has been difficult to work with, but his exasperated comment was certainly not vandalism. Wronkiew (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize you were having so much trouble with Huggle and rollback. Please slow down, read the changes more carefully, and disable Huggle if you can't control it. I'll go ahead and clean up the mess at AfD/Orange and Bronze. Wronkiew (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was with enabling the option to automatically go to the next edit after a revert. When I would revert multiple changes by a vandal on a page Huggle would make the change then happily continue to revert on the next page after switching. I have disabled this feature and have not seen the issue arise since. As so many editors have had success with this software I wanted to take the time to determine what was causing the problem before giving up on the software. Please note that after talking to other editors I have been told that collision will still happen occasionally on simultaneous edits, no matter how carefully or slowly you work through the changes. I am still weighing the cost of occasionally having to undo a revert versus the benefit of increased effectiveness of diminishing the flood of vandalized pages. I do however apologize for any inconvenience this revert may have caused you. LeilaniLad (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but it's really best to be careful. By the way, the first edit by this user that you reverted was a page blank. The blank was legitimate because he was the creator and primary editor of Orange & Bronze Software Labs. WP:CSD#G7 says that this can be interpreted as a deletion request, so the appropriate thing to do is to add a {{db-g7}} tag. In this case, Supremo106 no longer wants the page deleted. There are other legitimate page blanks, even by anonymous users. One example is the removal of copyrighted material. Wronkiew (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of Anarchy Reversion

In what way exactly did my additions to the Sons of Anarchy page constitute Vandalism? The additions were neither incorrect nor defamatory, I was merely trying to flesh out the character descriptions.--Tricksterson (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When making statements about a person (especially implying that they have an interest in necrophilia), they need to be cited. All material on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. Your satements were not and were reverted. LeilaniLad (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While content obviously needs to be verified, I think it may have been inappropriate to define it as vandalism. Anonymous101 (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Put yourself in my place, you are patrolling vandalism (as I know you are wont to do), and you see this uncited edit making a claim of a characters penchant for necrophilia. Would you not also have reverted the change? LeilaniLad (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I am however trying to be more accurate in how I revert, using the editing error template now for situations like this. LeilaniLad (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Also, I don't want to come off as defensive. I realize that with each new tool I am given to work with that there is a period of learning to use it efficiently. Please understand that I am not being dismissive and am taking your advice to heart. My ultimate motivation is the improvement of the encyclopedia. LeilaniLad (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followers of Asura

Relax, I haven't finished my article yet.

Clan groups and player organizations are not notable subjects in and of themselves. You need to show significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for notability. I understand this is a similar group to the Advocates back in Asheron's Call, but if you create a new article without the needed citations it will be flagged for speedy deletion. Feel free to add the needed citations and the hangon tag if you feel they are available. LeilaniLad (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT a clan group. As I wrote in my new article, it is sanctioned by the developer.

As stated above, I understand that. but posting a half-finished, uncited article does not satisfy the requirements for notability. You need to add citations to show why the article should be included. Please read the links in the message above regarding said requirements. LeilaniLad (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I'll delete the article and write one in the AoCWiki.

Sure, there are many other Wikis out there. Each has its own purpose and guidelines. LeilaniLad (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Watcher

I've activated this feature for you, have fun! Tim Vickers (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea I'm afraid, maybe try asking on the software's talkpage? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can mark newpages as patrolled OK, so it isn't a general problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:TheHauntingOfCastleMalloy.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TheHauntingOfCastleMalloy.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia: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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn Calloway

Before you delete a page you must follow all of the steps on this page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Spikydan1 (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the Wikipedia guidelines on deletion. Please familiarize yourself with WP:BIO, which instructs editors to immediately remove uncited biographic information about living persons. When that is removed from the Auburn Calloway article, what remains is a direct copy and paste of wording from the main article. As there is no original material in this article, the policies in WP:R instruct an editor to replace such a stub with a redirect. Finally, in such a blatant candidate for a redirect, the overriding policy of WP:BB would apply. As you seem to dispute this, I will mark the article for prod and we can go through the formal deletion process before replacing it with a redirect. LeilaniLad (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove information

Hello, you removed information from 'Ndrangheta because of a dead link. However, a dead link is no valid reason to do so. The world is bigger than internet and people might want to check the hard copy. Read the policy at WP:DEADLINK. Kind regards. - Mafia Expert (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilco. I was just getting tired of vandalism/new page patrol and was trying something different. I'll be more cautious in the future and follow deadlink guidelines. They should really post a link to that policy on the deadlink list page. I did read the boxed text there before beginning my editing on dead links, and as there was no "be sure and read this first" message I was assuming we edited under our own recognizance. Thanks for the heads up. LeilaniLad (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it is not easy to keep page clean from vandalism. A mistake is only human. Kind regards. - Mafia Expert (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: Manichaean paranoia

Hi! I've nominated the article Manichaean paranoia for deletion because I deem that it is not notable and cannot become notable, because of the inherent contradiction in this political phrase. I'm giving you a notice on this because you have contributed to the article and I deem you have rights to have a say in the matter. My elaborate analysis of the failures of the article can be read in Talk:Manichaean paranoia. The discussion for (and against) deletion is kept in this page (WP:AfD/Manichaean paranoia (2nd nomination). Be welcome to partake! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only contribution I made to this article was nominating it for deletion. If you check the references the only mention of the term in any of them is in a single clip from The Daily Show. It is non-notable and the editor is using the page as a personal soapbox. More power to you my friend. LeilaniLad (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your friendly words, may all powers be bestowed to you! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice user page

I don't know if you're still editing Wikipedia, but I just wanted to say I saw your user page, and I approve. There's a lot of essays on Wikipedia defending inclusionism - it's nice to see one defending the position of deletionism once in a while, especially one that does it so effectively. Although I dislike the term 'deletionist' myself, I broadly agree with what you said there. Robofish (talk) 06:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archie Humanoid Robot

Just a friendly note on Archie Humanoid Robot. I declined the speedy because a robot doesn't really fall into any of the categories in A7. If you think the article isn't notable, try prod or AfD. HTH!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

felice frankel

I happened to hit "save" instead of "preview".... You really say "aaaarghh" for that when you're creating an article.... ¨¨ victor falk 22:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aileen Roberts, 2nd Countess Roberts

Hi. I appreciate that you may be unawares, but as a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (DBE), Roberts is recognized as inherently notable. She is not merely the child of a notable person as the DBE is earned independently from the British monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister for contributions in any of many possible fields. It's true the article is a little thin, but it's not perfected yer. If necessary we can take it to WP:AFD but that won't be necessary if you check with an admin. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSD tagging

I've reverted your addition of an A3 CSD tag. I did this because the article wasn't empty (albeit, it lacked prose/text content) but the infobox pointed to the article being developed. By the way, I've seen you around NPP before, and you do pretty nice work; keep it up. Thanks, and happy editing. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: A Celebration of an Ending

Hello LeilaniLad, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of A Celebration of an Ending - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of notability, or is not a musical recording. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW (Talk) 00:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Edward Percy Hamm

Hello LeilaniLad, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Edward Percy Hamm - a page you tagged - because: Contains sufficient content to be a stub. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW (Talk) 00:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NW. If you look at the history, I had tagged it for speedy deletion as it was a blank page when originally created. The aforementioned Contains sufficient content to be a stub. prod was added by a subsequent editor. LeilaniLad (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it was. The A3 was nullified by the addition of new content, but that wasn't your fault at all. Cheers, and happy editing. NW (Talk) 02:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archie Humanoid Robot

Hi there,

You left a reply on my talk page about this article. Since I haven't seen it or edited it before, I'm guessing it wasn't meant for me - you probably meant to reply to User:Fabrictramp, right? But since you've brought it to my attention, I'll take a look at the article anyway... perhaps there's something I can do for it. Robofish (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, it's easy to click on the wrong username by mistake. I agree that the article looks non-notable, although perhaps not speedy-worthy. (I notice that a similar article, Archie (The Humanoid Robot), was previously deleted under WP:CSD#A7; on this one, though, the speedy deletion was declined.) I suggest doing a quick search for sources, and if you can't find any, nominating it for deletion. Robofish (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edits

I will try to, sorry. I edit in my text editor and once it looks good I post, but then all I'm doing is thinking about it and have more things to add. I'll try to wait more time before posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erin Fogle (talk • contribs) 06:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Plas Farm

Hello LeilaniLad, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Plas Farm has been removed. It was removed by Rhianw with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Rhianw before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

HG

Good job anti vandalising, you're always beating me to the "Q" key darn you :-P. - Jeffrey Mall | Talk2Me | BNosey - 15:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:-O I've only been using HG for.. the best part of a week maybe? So I'll try my best. - Jeffrey Mall | Talk2Me | BNosey - 15:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PeopleForce Inc.

Hello. I noticed you added a ProD tag to PeopleForce, Inc.. Your reason provided was "G12 - Company". To the extent of my knowledge, G12 (Copyvio, not company) applies only to speedy deletion. If you believe an article is advertising, please use {{db-g11}} instead. If an article is about an unremarkable company, use {{db-corp}}. Thank you. Intelligentsium 16:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrolling

Please see this thread and consider giving new page creators some breathing room before tagging their pages for deletion. In this case, you tagged within 2 minutes of creation. Unless it's an attack page or something, give the editor some time to work with the article. Thanks, –xeno^talk 17:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two minutes still seems a little swift for an A7. WP:NPP encourages to patrol from the bottom, otherwise we can turn off new contributors. I didn't realize about the block log, so I guess that's a bit of an explanation. Cheers, –xeno^talk 17:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note also, that db-repost does not apply to speedied articles. See WP:CSD#G4 for more on this. –xeno^talk 17:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: unrelated query; I replied at my talk. –xeno^talk 19:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On this issue, please see WT:CSD#20-30 min limit for a nominating a very short, new article under the article criteria which has been created discussing the incident's possible impact on our policy. Also, please make yourself familiar with A7's threshold: Being a professor at a notable university is sufficient claim of importance/significance to make A7 non-applicable. You can also read WP:A7M, an essay which lists more such general indications for using A7. Regards So Why 20:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dePRODing of articles

Hello LeilaniLad, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:

PROD removed from End of the Night, by User:Snigbrook, with summary '(fix deletion template, add categories/links)'
PROD removed from Michael Thompson, Photographer, by User:LyndaS11, with summary '(fixed dead link to refrence)'

Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

My page

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Being active in vandal-bashing, I get this quite a lot. And support is always welcome. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfairness.

Look friend, We really do not see the reason as why out article "Throne villain" should be taken down - It's currently in construction and we have not violated any agreements. Perhaps when It's finished we will welcome your criticism but until then please stop trying to impede our every effort. The variation of topics have run arid, there's hardly anything left to write/read about. Let us reveal in enjoyment when we find cause to write a new topic. Kind regards - Demonlegions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DemonLegions (talk • contribs) 22:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

We have no intentions to argue with you, but we feel as though you're wrong about our article being a posting of original thought, you see it is related to the articles Dark Overlord or Supervillain. You know? The antithesis of a Superhero?

Okay, well if you and your comrades manage to obstruct us from writing these articles then can we not for example extend already existing articles? Perhaps extend information on already existing fictional characters in articles offering a breif knowledge of these characters? We'll read through this page of regulations and see if we can work through this. Good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DemonLegions (talk • contribs) 10:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]