User talk:Lexlex/Archives/2017/11
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Lexlex. 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. |
Disambiguation link notification for April 24
Hi. When you recently edited La Grande Station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Union Station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Re: Los Angeles Metro Page Moves
Hi Lexlex! A discussion on the station names has been started at Wikipedia talk:Article titles. – Zntrip 18:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Your recent rewrite of the above article added a lot of information, just about all of it lacking a source. It would be nice if you could cite where you got the info from because, as you know, we just want to be able to check it out to see if you accurately reported it. Thanks a lot. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough, however most of the changes were merely reductions of existing content. I know sources exist and will insert in due course. The existing page was almost verbatim copy from a number of transit websites on the line. Feel free to revert if you wish and I will add back as I research the cites. Lexlex (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Re: Notability concern of Anatoly_Wasserman
Many thanks, Lexlex, for having pointed me to the deletion discussion. I'm jumping in there immediately as, even at a glance, I've seen a glaring flaw in one of the arguments to keep him in Wikipedia en. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Jonathan Peizer biography
Lexlex, could you please review your edit here? I wrote the Jonathan Peizer article. Let me tell you about myself and my relationship with Mr. Peizer. I am a retired software developer living near Reading, Pennsylvania. Between 2001 and 2004, I worked for Freedom Scientific in St. Petersburg, Florida, mostly on version updates to the OpenBook software. Jim Fruchterman hired me, and I still consider him a friend. Jim is a genius, in the literal sense of the word. When I was in St. Pete, I happened to have a front-row seat, watching how Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation were formed. After I left Freedom Scientific, I remembered a conversation that Jim and I once had about the Soros Foundation, and so I reached out to the Open Society Institute around 2005 or 2006, to tell them about Wikipedia, and how it might be made more useful to marginalized users who have low vision or lack access to the Internet. I contributed many hours of volunteered consulting to Open Society, and one of the results of my efforts was their 2007 grant to Wikimedia Foundation to assist in the PediaPress initiative.
Just this year, I was browsing through Jim's old blog posts, and I came upon this one, which he had written back in 2006. He talked about how influential Peizer was in the launch of Jim's Martus Project. I went to Wikipedia to learn more about Peizer, because his name sounded familiar from my cooperation with the Open Society Institute, and I was very surprised and disappointed to find that he did not have an article in Wikipedia.
So, I endeavored to write his biography according to Wikipedia's standards.
Since then, the article has been questioned for notability, even though a noticeboard request gained no traction at all. Next, you marked the article as potentially being autobiographical (when clearly it is not), and then you tagged the article as being "original research", even though just about every sentence in the piece is footnoted to an outside source. I don't know Jonathan Peizer personally -- I've never even met him -- so how could it be "original research"?
Believe me, I realize the hard work that goes into Wikipedia, with volunteers like yourself trying to stamp out self-promotional manipulation. But frankly I'm feeling a little bit offended that the one article I attempted to write from scratch on Wikipedia is now tarnished with these ugly notices at the top of the article, none of which have any basis in fact. I implore you to review and reconsider your treatment of Peizer's biography. Thank you. -- Nutson11 (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Dear Nutson, please don't be offended. No offense was intended. I have no connection to the subject and was reviewing the article purely on it's form. As I recall, someone else initiated the discussion and I added the tags after a quick review. The intention of the maintenance tags is to ensure that all involved with the article are aware of the potential problems and to get them addressed. You are correct, many people write their own articles and it is a problem. As for this specific article I am more than happy to go over it with you and point out what is raising eyebrows. But again, these are merely maint tags intended to get the discussion going. There's no hurry. I will go over the article more carefully in the coming days and point out the potential issues more specifically. Lexlex (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 20:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
SarahStierch (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Signature
Hi there. Could you please remove 白痴美國 ("Idiot America" appended in traditional Chinese) from your signature? Users here may find the term offensive even with it not being written in English. Thanks. Funny Pika! 21:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, I was sure the translation was "Idiot American" (meaning me) but my Mandarin isn't what it used to be. is this better? Lexlex (傻) (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, that's fine. You could probably use 白痴美國佬 if you wanted "Idiot American". Funny Pika! 18:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
An article that you commented on at the Notability noticeboard has now been nominated for deletion. Your comments would be welcomed at the AfD.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Ways to improve Wilshire/La Brea (Los Angeles Metro station)
Hi, I'm Schwindy. Lexlex, thanks for creating Wilshire/La Brea (Los Angeles Metro station)!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Hi! Do you have any references that you can add to your article? Thanks! Schwindy (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Schwindy (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Ways to improve Wilshire/Fairfax (Los Angeles Metro station)
Hi, I'm Schwindy. Lexlex, thanks for creating Wilshire/Fairfax (Los Angeles Metro station)!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Hello! Do you have any references that you can add to your article to support the information? Thanks! Schwindy (talk)
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Schwindy (talk) 07:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Ways to improve Wilshire/La Cienega (Los Angeles Metro station)
Hi, I'm Schwindy. Lexlex, thanks for creating Wilshire/La Cienega (Los Angeles Metro station)!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Hello! Do you have any references or citations that you can add to your article to support the information? thanks! Schwindy (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Schwindy (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ban Bossy (campaign), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page InfoWars (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Sheryl Sandberg
You added the category, Censorship in the United States, to Sheryl Sandberg. But there's no mention of censorship on the article page itself. Was this a mistake? If not, could you please let me know why that article should be in the category? You probably have a very good reason, I just don't immediately see it. Thanks! --Yamla (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Yamla. I am organising articles associated with the Ban Bossy campaign. Since it is a word banning campaign and Sandberg is its founder and prime spokesperson, it seemed appropriate. Perhaps I should flesh out he description in that article before adding the category as it's not immediately obvious. Lexlex (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- That would certainly make things clearer, I think. :) I'll leave the category in place, then. Thanks for letting me know. --Yamla (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Request for Intervention
User:Lexlex, Shalom. There is a question about what is considered worthy or not worthy of publishing on a WP article page in terms of photos because of what may or may not be perceived by others as distasteful (bad taste). The editor, User:PacificWarrior101, had posted a Commons photograph of Israeli singer and transgender, Dana International, a photograph which I personally feel shows bad taste and tends to "flout" the dignity and self-respect of the Yemenite Jewish people. I voiced my concerns to the editor about my feelings of repugnancy evoked by the picture on a main article page, Yemenite Jews, that treats on ethnicity and, to a large extent, the history of Yemenite Jews. Most Yemenite Jews will feel a sense of shame by seeing this photo of "Dana International" on the page that speaks specifically about them as a people - and who, by the way, are mostly conservative to religious. While I have no personal problems about discussing issues of transgender, here the matter is different. Dana International's photograph on the main page of an article which treats on ethnicity is tantamount to putting up an image of a serial killer on an ethnicity page. Or, let's say, Israeli troops shooting at an Arab child, on a page which speaks on Israeli ethnicity. There should be a place for common considerations as for what is tactful and what is not, particularly when the photo is controversial and evokes shame. See the Talk page on Yemenite Jews, and the sub-section: "Flouting an Ethnic Group." Any advice by you will be much appreciated.Davidbena (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Hatnotes on Jews and Judaism
I see you changed the hatnotes on Jews and Judaism. I understand you didn't check the talkpages, where you could have seen that these hatnotes were the result of a consensus forming process. What really troubles me though is that you masked these edits under the editsummary "grammar". I will assume good faith, and simply remind you to use accurate editsummaries. in the future. In the case of these hatnotes, please discuss any changes you think necessary on the talkpages, as they are - as I said above - the result of previous discussions. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- It is a grammatical correction. The hat notes as they stand are needlessly complex and use the the term they're attempting to disambiguate within the disambiguation attempt, which does a grave disservice to the reader. Let's follow MOS. If you'd be kind enough to point me to the discussion which came up with these, perhaps I can help clear up a few things by citing the correct style references. it's not too complex. Thanks much! Lexlex (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Recently see Talk:Jews#Edit, which also refers to Talk:Judaism/Archive_19#Proposal_for_hatnote. Debresser (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Problems with user 'patrolling' aticles and undoing valid edits
I've noticed your post on this users page from last October and I am having the same problems. I simply ask for a citation on things that are claimed facts, without any citations at all. She said in the 'Mishnah' page openly that she will just keep undoing my edits. I feel like she 'owns' the pages and things have to pass through her first. It's almost like she's paid to patrol the pages. I thought this site was a collective work that was open to everybody. Im new, but simply amazed this site is used to 'project' personal agendas rather than find objective truth with citations on large, important topics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedavid00 (talk • contribs)
- It's difficult to respond to this as I don't know to whom you're referring, which article you mean, or even who you are as you didn't sign your post (another editor did it for you). While it can be jarring to learn that others don't hold your view of objective truth, it is a delightful learning experience. It is also time consuming. I would suggest getting more familiar with the rules of Wikipedia and reading through talk page archives and change logs of articles that interest you, then pick one to adopt and gently engage. Oh, and first rule, when adding a new article on a talk page, it goes on the bottom. ;) Cheers! Lexlex (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
reversion of Soil cement article
Hi Lexlex. I do not understand your comment in your reversion of my edits to soil cement. Did you revert all of my edits because I removed the section on Rhino snot? Thanks. Jim Derby (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Jim, my understanding is that the term "soil cement" refers to any bonding agent for soil and the article was therefore written with different types of bonding agents described. You removed those agents and changed the term to mean bonding agents made FROM cement products, which is a fundamentally different meaning. It seems such a big change would be discussed in talk, no? I've been wrong before, but would like to review with you in talk. Lexlex (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
PTC
They never mentioned anything about censorship, so stop re-adding that word to the page. Thank you. 157.7.48.207 (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- This has been discussed and their own website supports this term. Please see extensive talk section on this topic at "Censorship advocacy group" in lead. I will happily respond there if you have any further questions. Lexlex (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
How to read a clock listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect How to read a clock. Since you had some involvement with the How to read a clock redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GZWDer (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Request for comment: Lead sentence for train or railway stations
In what way should the lead sentence of articles dealing with railway stations or train stations be fashioned? See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment: Identification of train or railway stations in the lead. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Waldhorn
Hi. I don't like the move to Waldhorn, and I am disappointed that you didn't have a look at the Talk page first. Maybe we can discuss it there? For the moment your fait accompli will stand, as I can't move it back anyway! Cheers DBaK (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Waldhorn?
Sorry, I reverted your move. There was a long discussion about the last move, - please discuss first, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Mormon conversions and the Daily Mail
Please don't make any more edits like this. The Daily Mail is a lousy source. --John (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Noted. My understanding is this is fairly well-known fact, but will find more sources to back it up. Thanks for heads up. Lexlex (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thanks for taking on the thankless task of updating Expo Line-related pages today. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 18:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC) |
Victor Borge reversion
Why did you revert my edit of the Victor Borge article and mark it as "unsourced"? It says right there in the very article itself that he was born in a Jewish family and partly interred in a Jewish cemetery. I intend to revert it unless you can show me a source that contradicts these facts. - Metalello talk 02:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Because there is already an infobox entry and several categories which cover that subject. Adding any group membership information to the lead, especially before his nationality, is atypical and would be acceptable only if you can cite where he referred to himself in that way, otherwise the infobox serves the purpose. Lexlex (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- But there is no entry about it in his infobox. - Metalello talk 11:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- OK, well that's where it goes! .As well as in various categories—so he can be found. Go to town! :) Lexlex (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- But there is no entry about it in his infobox. - Metalello talk 11:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
26th St./Bergamot Station
I have added a link to the cited newspaper article. Nomen ambiguum (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Back in 2012 you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Deletion was merely on lack of content, so if she's now notable, hurrah. Let's see what comes up.Lexlex (talk) 10:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Ways to improve Venice Short Line (Pacific Electric)
Hi, I'm Jackson Peebles. Lexlex, thanks for creating Venice Short Line (Pacific Electric)!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. I really like the template, but if you have any additional information on this particular line, that'd be fantastic!
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Lexlex. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of Lela Star for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lela Star 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/Lela Star until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)