User talk:LeaveSleaves/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Re: My user page

Much appreciated, LeaveSleaves :)

..If you ever need anything, feel free to email me or send me a message.

Thanks again.

Best wishes, ~ Troy (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) ~ Troy (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

adding a page about myself

I believe there should be a page about me on wikipedia. My name is Andrew Ridgway and an Andrew Ridgway already exists. Is there a way I can aff another Andrew Ridgway page with my middle naqme to differentiate between the two? Let me know if it is possible for me to add a page about myself that won't be deleted. Thanks a lot.

-Andy Ridgway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.112.201 (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:BIO. An article return about a person needs to have sufficient notability before it can considered valid. Also autobiographies are not encouraged since they may compromise the neutrality of the article. LeaveSleaves (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Kip Mckean

Perhaps I am not looking at this properly, but I don't see how providing a link to another article that is well sourced and extremely pertinent to who Kip Mckean is can be construed as vandalism. The text included was not defamatory nor was biased it merely provided an additional source of information regarding the subject. You cannot discuss Poe without discussing his writing, and in much the same way you cannot discuss Kip Mckean without discussing his creation. The only reason he has an article at all is because he founded the ICOC. So... maybe I just don't get it. Please help me to understand =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.13.10 (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Your method of adding the information isn't right. If you feel that a certain wikipedia article is helpful, add it in the "See also" section as an internal link. LeaveSleaves (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: My user page

No problems, just happy to help out. --> Halmstad, Talk to me 11:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Andre Nel

Maybe you should check the rest of that page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.182.188 (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

83.87.92.225

I reported him to wp:aiv, and has now been blocked for 30+ hours. Citedcover (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, keep up the good work. Cheers! LeaveSleaves (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve Perry

Just call it vandalism. To call it "negative" is to make a value judgment, which would be a violation of NPOV if it were in an article. Your stronger argument is that it is unsourced. Dave Golland (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I get your point. Thanks for bringing it up. The reason I chose that summary was because I wasn't sure if it was derogatory or argumentative. I thought should the contributor repeat the edit, I'd call it vandalism. Anyways, thanks again. LeaveSleaves (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Dave Golland (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

unsolicited removal of image of a public leader having ancient roots,source ,fair use and wikipedia page use all specified and still deletion

unsolicited removal of image of a public leader having ancient roots,source ,fair use and wikipedia page use all specified and still deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamta dhody (talk • contribs) 06:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey-lo!

Good work with the vandals! On your user page you have tons of those "this user is a _ " and "this user contributes with a professional level of english, etc.". Where did you get those from?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antivenin (talk • contribs) 15:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You can find userboxes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes. LeaveSleaves (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou! Antivenin (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

image captions

Why did you remove captions from the infobox photos of several of the tennis players I added last week? dm (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the thumbnail parameter for all infobox images. The image captions for images in the infobox are only effective for mouse overs and are not shown otherwise. LeaveSleaves (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this will come down to which browser/os you're using, but the captions *are* visible, at least to some configurations. dm (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure which configurations you are suggesting, but at least in Firfox and IE non-thumbnailed images do not show captions, simply mouse overs. A possible solution could be that you add a separate line in the infobox after the image syntax, e.g. LeaveSleaves (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

"Wikipedia is not a collection of links" ?

It's a friggin' web page, and what's a web page without links?

Give me a break. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeMiller69 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia and there are certain guidelines, such as WP:EL, WP:NOTLINK that you should refer to before adding links to articles. LeaveSleaves (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand it's against "guidelines". I'm just saying that the guidelines are bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeMiller69 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that's something you should take up on the talk pages of respective guideline. Remember be civil. LeaveSleaves (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Andy Murray

Hi LeaveSleaves, I understand your concern, but I think having that phrase in the lead (or elsewhere in the article if preferred) is better than what that user looks to have done. I mean, that phrase says, "he will reach a career high ranking of #4" rather than saying "he is #4", which is what that user did. So I think saying what he is definitely going to be is okay, but actually saying he is that now is wrong (until the ATP says so). However, I just noticed that his infobox says his ranking is number 4, which I will change to 6 now, since he isn't number 4 yet. I hope you appreciate the difference and where I am coming from! Deamon138 (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not arguing whether or not he would reach that ranking. My only argument is regarding the speculation, particularly its mention in the lead paragraph. All I am saying is that it's not our place to speculate, no matter how correct the speculation really is. ATP is the sole and final source for writing player rankings. LeaveSleaves (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

But as I said, the phrase "he will reach a career high ranking of #4" is not "writing player rankings", it is saying what his ranking is going to be, not what it is. Think of it like this: the fact that he is going to be number 4 is certain. However, if he entered a tournament right this second, his entry would be based on him being ranked number 6. So we can say what his ranking is going to be (especially when WP:CRYSTAL says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place"), but we can't say what is going to be as it is (for instance we can't say he is number 4 in the world because he isn't yet, nor can we say that the tv series House has 5 seasons when season 5 hasn't yet been broadcast, but we can say House is scheduled to have a fifth season). I don't see the ATP as the sole reliable source on what rankings are going to be in the future: if there's a guideline or essay for this then I would be grateful to you if you can give me a link thanks. Deamon138 (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WP:Tennis is extremely inadequate when it comes to article guidelines such as these. There might be discussion in its archives on this issue, but I have no intention of searching it for now. The rankings are in fact defined by ATP and are thus they remain the official source for them and reporting from any other sources would be speculative. In fact, rankings themselves don't have a future dimension. They should be written as they are at present. Anyways, I guess we can let this one slide, since as you said (and I almost definitely agree) he is going to be No.4. But I'd remain on my stand regarding ranking reporting. LeaveSleaves (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

F1 2008

It was a mistake as I didn't realize that when trying to edit the page at the same time as another person the whole article comes to editing window instead of only the section you are editing. BleuDXXXIV (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Just make sure you preview the changes before saving. LeaveSleaves (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism by Special:Contributions/92.43.64.80

Hi,

I noticed you reverted some instances of vandalism by the IP address 92.43.64.80. I have been keeping an eye on that address for some time now and he has vandalized articles about 60 times since March quite regularly (usually 5-10 edits at a time, at intervals of a few days). I have tried to report this IP address to get it blocked, but my request was denied last time (apparently he hasn't made enough edits yet to be worth investigating). If you are an administrator, maybe you could help look into how we might get this address blocked or at least have a warning sent to the host of the address (it seems to be a workplace).

Thanks, Politizer (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, so I can't help you there. As for Abuse reports, the criteria required is minimum 5 blocks. As I see it, there have been 4 effective blocks so far (ignoring a minor 15 minutes block). So I guess you'd have to wait for a while before you report that IP again, and get your appeal accepted. Please feel free to ask if you need any help then. Cheers! LeaveSleaves (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good work

Hi there. I would just like to say good work with revetring vandalism. Keep it up! ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and you too!! LeaveSleaves (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Regarding yesterdays (or day before)'s edit war on the "Naruto" article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:162.53.103.225

Very bottom.

You might want to read this. CompuHacker (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a fascinating read. But I'm afraid I didn't get your point in posting this message. Or was there no other? LeaveSleaves (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Err, perhaps we should do something. He just made two novels worth of insults, but it appears he has some useful information pertaining to the article. Review the article and his "novel", and do something with the Naruto page. If you don't believe what he has is useful, point it out on his talk page. CompuHacker (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you might have noticed that my edits of that page and a warning the IP talk page was a result of Recent changes patrolling. I do not really possess any information on the subject. As for the user, I do not feel that he used constructive methods to resolve the issue and instead resorted to vandalism and blanking the page. He now seems to be discussing the issue on talk page, which I take is a good sign. Anyways, if you feel I'm still useful in helping resolve the issue, please let me know. LeaveSleaves (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

EXTERNAL LINK ISSUES

LeaveSleaves - I appreciate your moderation concerns but I really believe that a posted link to http://www.informationtennis.com which you have removed several times for anti-spamming is injust, simply as its a good information resource that only adds to the value of the visitor. As you will see I have created a lot of very good content for Wikipedia adding new tennis rivalries, new player profiles and thus creating a better information resource tool to those visiting the site. You will also notice on many profiles some fan sites and even tennis sites with external links that provide no value whatsoever. I have no connection with Information Tennis but I believe they are up there with the likes of ATP and WTA at providing information and it gives visitors further resource tools which is the whole point of external links and external references for viewers to get another perspective. Also on the subject of your moderation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TennisGuru5 (talk • contribs) 12.41, September 10, 2008

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. I'm afraid you wouldn't find many takers who'd say that it is a credible external link. LeaveSleaves (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The link you deleted for Melanie Oudin for example was a thread created by myself and for which i gave it credible links. The content for the rising stars on Information Tennis is not out of date and clearly offers a wider resource tool for visitors trying to gain a bit more information about an up and coming player. I am not trying to have an argument but just trying to be a bit more constructive. The site clearly offers a lot in terms of tennis information such as rivalries, tennis timeline, tournament and television info and is a complete information resource tool which i believe is useful to visitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TennisGuru5 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Now here you put me into strange situation. In your first message you said that you have no connection with the site, and now you say you created Melanie Oudin's thread there. I have no choice but to suspect that there is a conflict of interest here. Please be clear on this. And once again I say this, it's clearly a site some marketing firm, and is entirely unclear about the resources used to get the information. LeaveSleaves (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'd appreciate if you'd remain clear of your intentions and don't add these links to articles yet. Otherwise I'm forced to revert them. LeaveSleaves (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not have a connection and yes I created the Melanie Oudin thread? As people are allowed to create tennis articles. The case with me creating the entry surely gives me the right to dictate what I believe is a good inforamtion resource for those looking at a player who previously wasn't on Wikipedia . I do believe you are on some personal vendetta and tirade which quite frankly I believe is not in the correct interests of Wikipedia. I will be looking to further this as I do not believe you have justifiable grounds to constantly delete changes I have made given the valuable contributions to tennis. I am clearly not lowering standards and in fact providing a further information resource tool which is clearly independent and unbias or linked with fan sites. All links I have provided have given genuine articles on those topics of interest rather than pure spam and add an extra dimension and reference tool which is the whole point of external links. You will notice that I have balanced this with other links such as the ATP and WTA for new articles but given that these are in the bulk of existing tennis threads there is no point to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TennisGuru5 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it seems I have antagonized you. Let's just calm down, I am not at all questioning you intentions as a contributing editor, nor do I have any vendetta against you. There are some things to clear about the issue though and I'd hope you'd help me there. First, I checked the history of Melanie Oudin article and it shows that the creator of the article is Tennis Expert5, not you. Or is it that you are operating both accounts? Then I'd suggest you read this guideline. Next, even if you do create an article, you do not have ownership of the article, nor does anyone else. As for the issues on links, since you feel I may not be entirely unbiased, I am initiating a discussion on Wikiproject Tennis talk page where I hope you'd receive opinion from multiple editors on the matter. LeaveSleaves (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I accept no one has full ownership I still feel I have operated with good intentions as it is a good reference source for tennis fans and probably the best outside of the official organisations offering a range of differing subjects. I have externally linked official organisations such as the ATP and WTA when appropriate but as I stated previously most of these are already on most profiles but when a new profile is created the link gives another source for information about the subject matter which is independent and which is unbiased therefore no conflicts of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TennisGuru5 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still can't agree with you. The website is entirely unclear about the authors of the subject matter, nor does it state any sources. Also, you still haven't explained exactly how is it that you claim to have created the Melanie Oudin article when its history indicates that it has been created by Tennis Expert5. LeaveSleaves (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Love (2008 Bengali film)

I noted that you removed this Link from the page, and I agree with your reasoning, as inexperienced editors far too often include external links without qualifying a reason for inclusion... and this can get messy and seem like blatant advertising. But then it stuck me... If I myself returned it in this format:

Link to trailer: "Su, tollynewz.com, May 1 2008, "Ringo's 'Love' " recovered 9 12 2008",

keeping a neutral tone in explanation of what the link offered, might that then serve as properly qualified affirmation that the film is( or soon will be) released? At this point I am not overly concerned with returning the link, since the corrected article survived the AfD. But when I was doing my own research, I had not found it... and it's inclusion could be useful if included. What do you think? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have two takes on the issue. First, the IP who added this link to the article also added similar links to other film articles. Now, this sort of behavior obviously arouses suspicion on IP's intention of merely spamming the articles. Second, even if you feel that the link is perhaps authentic in its claim (as in this case, shows trailer of the film), I wouldn't suggest you add it. Simply because the site is obviously not officially associated with film production, in fact it simply embeds a video from YouTube, on which the addition of video might border on copyright infringement (see WP:EL for details). Nor is it reliable source, so as to be added into references. So, I'd suggest looking for a more neutral, reliable resource such as a news article of a recognized magazine or daily. LeaveSleaves (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well... sorry to hear that the anonymous IP has been causing problems... and I'm happy to know that you are on top of the sirtuation. In looking atthe site itself, the Tollynewz site actually does seem to be associated with news and reviews of Bollywood films. I liked also that they were not themselves directly associated with Love (2008 Bengali film) and were only suportive of other informations I found when improving the article.

I was interested in the link offering this text:

"Ringo's love. Starring: Koel and Jishu, Directed by: Ringo

After his high definition action packed film 'Kranti' and 'Neel Rajar Deshe', Ringo is making his third directorial venture titled 'Love'. The movie is based on the popular novel 'Love Story' by Erich Segal"

But I was somewhat interested only becuase it was supportive of other informations I had found from reliable sources. I simply considered the Tollynewz link as a "tertiary source at best.

It does seem that the youtube account that posted the clip is involved in uploading clips of many Bollywood films... and copyright infringement will be dealt with by youtube if such exist. I do not have the background of the youtube account and its permissions to make any guess beyond that.

As it is, and as I stated in my first communication, I am not overly concerned with returning the link, since the corrected article survived the AfD with the links and sources I had found during the AfD. Thank you much for your inciteful reply. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hule Fringe link on Fringe TV series article

The Hulu Fringe page is very relevant to the Fringe TV series. An external link to the Hulu Fringe page helps the user gain information about the Fringe TV series. Please explain why you found it necessary to remove this external link. This site is highly relevant as it contains the pilot episode and exclusive cast interviews.

I added this link in the hopes that people who visit Wikipedia seeking information about Fringe can find the highest quality information available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. innocent (talk • contribs) 00:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one thing the site isn't officially associated with the series. Plus, the content is only accessible within the United States that greatly limits its usage as an external link for worldwide users. LeaveSleaves (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The internet movie database and tv.com aren't officially associated with the series either. I scoured the Hulu TOS, and couldn't find any country restrictions. Could you please provide a source for your claim? Mr. innocent (talk) 06:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about country restrictions, but country accessibility. The content can only be watched when accessed from the United States. You can confirm that here. Although I've recently found an older discussion here discussing the same issue. Apparently it resulted in favor of the website. I still would it's inappropriate to use it due to its lack of coverage. LeaveSleaves (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Pilot (Fringe)

I reverted a few of your edits, notably some of the tense variations. You have provided some better sources, so yay. :) Just so we are on the same page, I am happy to merge the content from the article I created to this one. Note that I was using the other two series pilot articles (Smallville and House) as guidelines on format, and I want to keep the Frigne pilot article close to that, if possible. Collectonian's apparent dislike of episodic content aside, it did have the unintended effect of making the de facto merged article better. Thoughts? - Hexhand (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I intend to contribute to develop the article on its own, not based on how other articles were written. Nor do I have anything personal against Collectonian's actions. LeaveSleaves (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I know you don't have a problem with Collectonian; nor did I, before yesterday (didn't even know who she was). Sorry to bring my distaste with them here. Anyway, why were you of the impression that the cast list for the pilot episode was "unnecessary"? - Hexhand (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The main cast serves no purpose on episode page. They are already present on main article. Only guest stars need to be added, and this can be done through infobox. LeaveSleaves (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but precedent (those pesky FA articles) indicate differently. Each article is supposed to stand on its own, not rely on another article. As the pilot article is the one that introduces us to the characters, it belongs. Maybe this would be a discussion better off on the actual article discussion page? - Hexhand (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can, I'd request you to wait until the AfD business is over. We can discuss improvements in the article later. LeaveSleaves (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hexhand has apparently decided that neither of us is actual competent to edit an article, despite our both being well established editors with thousands of edits under our belt. He has now completely reverted all of our edits to clean up the Pilot article twice. I'm not going to bother dealing with this BS anymore, but I did fix back the AfD tag that he wrongly changed. I'll leave it to you to decide it you want to deal with his undoing your very proper edits. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Per the comments in the DRV, I've gone ahead and relisted the AFD. Dreadstar † 23:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Might you consider changing the wording "Strong Oppose" to "Strong Keep", as I'm sure that you mean you wish the article to NOT be deleted. That is usually the norm... a "Keep" or a "Delete" Using the word "Oppose" in a keep argument could be confusing (but of course not to those who read your comments). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd do that. LeaveSleaves (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool. And not that anyone would be in a hurry when looking over the discussions... but a quick glance that says Delete, Oppose, Oppose, Keep, Keep, Merge... might give a wrong impression. Best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Now it looks like you voted twice. I was thinking more of a strikeout like Oppose Keep (Clarified my vote to avoid confusions) or some such. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason I did it was that my second argument be considered too, particularly in light of re-listing. And since I hadn't used keep or delete earlier, I don't think that counts as my vote. LeaveSleaves (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand. But using "Comment I'd like to state in support of my earlier vote that...." is a perfectly acceptable way to add to the discussions or refute other's arguments. I don't think it will be a big deal, considering the history of the AfD, but just didn't want anyone to throw it back at you later. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll be ready for that. LeaveSleaves (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Or there could be a "Strong Keep Comment per my vote above: " or some such. It is a most interesting discussion and will be refered to in the future... that's a guarantee. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Addendum... I mean 2 heavyweight Admins have weighed in... its gonna be remembered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess so. There's something else. Do you think this is happening primarily because of a very early creation of article? I mean, assuming the series is well received and then there's a larger number of takers on creation of pilot article. LeaveSleaves (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That's possible... as there are a whole cadre of editors who take a look a every new article within seconds of it being uploaded to prevent problems with copyright or with inflmatory statements, etc. I think tagging it for better sourcing or tagging it as having notability problems might have been a better first step... but then another almost identical article appeared... and THAT was what caused the undue interest. And there are editors who expect everything to start out perfect, and propose deletion perhaps too quickly... and of course, that's the best reason to construct these things in a sandbox and get input before moving them to the main. But there are very few series that have special articles about their pilot episodes... and I mean very few... as there are guidelines that recommend against it for various reasons. But pretty much it was the two Fringe pilot articles appearing nearly simultanoeiusly that brought the attention... and with all the disagreements with which one had precedent and which one was better and whose should merge to whose... Well... It was a very rare event. Rare enough so 2 major Admins are speaking up. Rare. Both articles were far better than many new ones. Heck, take a look at Samer al-Masry which is a very poor effort about someone whose notability should have been easy for the author to include... and one I will myself be expanding. So no, I don't think it was too early for the article. it just got caught up in a lot of drama. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess this is where a dislike for television episode articles arises. As a relatively new to this entire process, I guess I'd be seeing more of this soon enough. Also, thanks for standing up for me on the AfD. LeaveSleaves (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And one must remember, notability is distinct from popularity, importance, or fame, and all criteria of WP:GNG must be carefully considered. Wikipedia is keenly sensative to the kind of Hollywood hype that can deluge the media in a matter of minutes or hours, so there are checks and balances through WP:NOBJ. Never be afraid to ask a question of anyone who seems to have a grasp of the processes... and this includes Collectonion. She has a lot on the ball. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting Vandalism

You're a quick and formidable opponent! I give up. Cheers! -Saucy McFoodlefist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.209.129 (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah nice work, I was wondering if you could tell me how to revert multiple vandalism in one go, such as this guy did here: [1] thnx! My current knowledge limits me to reverting one edit at a time.--EchetusXe (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The user you are referring used a particular software called Huggle, the same one I use. For starters, you'd need rollback rights. You can request for those rights here. There are many other tools that can be found here. LeaveSleaves (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Heron Marked Barnstar

The Heron Marked Barnstar I hereby award this Barnstar to LeaveSleaves for their conspicuous effort reverting vandalism to the Rand al'Thor article. Tai'shar Wikipedia! Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping an eye out for Rand's page and reverting those revolting edits. Wikipedia needs more people like you, and I wish that vandal patrollers got recognition more often. Please consider this Wheel of Time themed barnstar to be a small token of my appreciation for all your hard work. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.  :-) Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean?

In light of this removal of Goodman's review, can you explain what you mean by "rm review, it is in light of next episode"? Goodman was speaking specifically as to the faults of the pilot, and how to address them moving forward. - Hexhand (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Goodman's original review for the pilot was this, published September 8, which is already added. The review you are referring to was published September 15, after he had watched second episode and then analyzed both. So his remarks are after considering both episodes, not his initial remarks for pilot. A possible place for the second review could be the series article. Also, please use article talk page for discussion related with improvements in the article from hereon. LeaveSleaves (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Might I ask the same of you? Maybe, when you revert something not once but twice, recognize that some disucssion might help rather than hinder, the editing process. - Hexhand (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've initiated discussions when I felt the need to. And what have I reverted twice? LeaveSleaves (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 Formula One Season

Can you please explain your revert. 142.161.174.153 (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Mercedes Benz, the Germany based motoring company is a partner, the team is actually based in United Kingdom. Check out McLaren. LeaveSleaves (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ottis Toole

Dude i just watched his A&E biography everything i wrote down is right, you don't believe me go on youtube and watch the damn thing urself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.94.128 (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You must provide a proper reference from a reliable source when you add content. LeaveSleaves (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

How do i do that its a video —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.94.128 (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Youtube is rarely considered a valid source. You should try and look for more reliable published source. LeaveSleaves (talk) 03:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I found one that varifies what i wrote there you go, Lucas and Toole met in a soupkitchen in Florida, he slept on his mothers grave when she died, sister died of a drug overdose its all there

http://www.carpenoctem.tv/killers/toole.html—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.94.128 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 19 September 2008

The source seems fine. Make sure you cite it properly when adding information. LeaveSleaves (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

hi baby

hi baby how are you doing? where did you learn arabic? and how do you find so much free time? 10000+edits in 1yr 7mon??????? you are not a bot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutecuteguy (talk • contribs) 17:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Staple gun

Could you please explain when I ever got personal in Wikipedia? 122.161.7.116 (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I accidentally left you a wrong message. The message was intended to be against your insertion of spam links. LeaveSleaves (talk) 03:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And how is a link to xkcd spam? 122.161.7.116 (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a webcomic that serves no purpose to provide additional information on the article's subject and hence does not conform with WP:EL. LeaveSleaves (talk) 03:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, good job. I was just kidding. Hope you didn't mind much. :P 122.163.15.94 (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Dann, you're quick ;)

thats what I wanted to do quite now ;) abf /talk to me/ 13:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and you're doing great too. LeaveSleaves (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page. StaticGull  Talk  15:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem! LeaveSleaves (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Augustus

I hope this was a mistake 1

Alexnia (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 16:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I realized it much later that I reverted my edits twice. LeaveSleaves (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

'Chicanegate' page

I created the page as you suggested in my sandbox. I will move it to a new page ('chicanegate', unless you can think of something better) if you don't have any problems with it. Apterygial (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And replying here is fine. Apterygial (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. I'm posting a reply on the GP page in a few moments. LeaveSleaves (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss your reverts on talk page

Please discuss your reverts on talk page of Bailout regarding Icann's quote. Verify and see he actually said it. JUst to add balance to Buffett's viewpoint. 71.131.1.34 (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:NuclearWarfare

User:NuclearWarfare was removing valid templates from articles; how is this not vandalism? --72.140.46.227 (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment : These were removed by an action from the Wikimedia office. Don't revert those without a valid reason. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

72.140.46.227: Please read WP:DTTR

NuclearWarfare: I was merely acting in light of above policy. LeaveSleaves (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: My user page

No problem, glad to help out! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

have u ever even been to university?

?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.128.46 (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

User page

Please do not update information on my user page. LeaveSleaves (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not, i was tryin to be helpful. iz u disrespectin me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.128.46 (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

hi

Thank you for keeping Dora the Explorer on your watchlist (or so I assume since you're often there in a flash when it's been vandalized). Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 04:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not on my watchlist, I just happen to be around when it is vandalised! LeaveSleaves (talk) 04:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

GIVE IT TO ME

I'm sorry if it bugged you NOW PUT IT BACK WHERE IUT BELONGS!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckyw11 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Madison, Connecticut

Hello, Just wondering why you removed the mention I added under notable people in Madison of Laurence Witten, well-known antiquarian book dealer who sold the Vinland Map to Yale University? Witten, a Yale alum, was one of the nation's best known dealers in rare books, medieval manuscripts and maps, and lived in Madison for many years. Here is a bit more about him. [2] A rather notable man. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I couldn't find the edit you are referring to. Could you please give me a link to the diff? LeaveSleaves (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, when I looked a bit ago the Witten entry under Notable People was gone. Now it's there again. Perhaps this is my mistake as it appears it wasn't reverted.Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what happened with that but it was my error. Sorry.MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem! LeaveSleaves (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Huggle

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Good job on RC today, keep up the good work! —— RyanLupin • (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot of folks who do RC patrolling have their userpage protected to stamp out that kind of nonsense, would you like me to sort that out for you? —— RyanLupin • (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not that bad actually. If I feel the need, I'd contact you in the future. LeaveSleaves (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)