User talk:Leitmotiv

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rules of my talk page:

1. The Dude does not abide people using his talk page and also refusing to talk to The Dude if specifically addressed, such as through a ping. If this persists, your edits will be removed as being intentionally unproductive towards the purpose of this talk page.

DYK for Redmond Caves[edit]

Updated DYK query On December 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Redmond Caves, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest[edit]

You say on your user page that:

One of my personal projects is the Horse Lava Tube System, which starts in the Deschutes National Forest and runs through the east side of Bend, through Redmond, and beyond. It contains over 100 caves of varying sizes. My goals are to survey the remaining caves in the system and publish a book (not for public consumption) on it. I currently have a good draft. Another companion book which is a bibliography on the Horse Lava Tube System is nearly complete at almost 100 pages in length, but still a work in progress.

You are also actively involved in trying to prevent the publication of information (namely coordinates) about those systems on Wikipedia. You have a clear conflict of interest; not least since you will loose exclusivity if information is published in Wikipedia. Please be aware of our policy on CoI, and be sure to both abide by it and declare your interest, should you decide to continue to edit in regard to such cave systems. I have also raised the matter at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Cave coordinates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits

Thanks for drawing this to my attention. I will direct you to my response at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Cave coordinates for further details. I will address a couple things since you tend to be vague at times. Could you specifically pinpoint the conflict of interest involving exclusivity? And how did you come to this conclusion, for I'm truly at a loss. By the way... you mention "systems" meaning plural. I believe my book is on just one system. So I do not know what other systems you are referring about in regards to my book. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

quote[edit]

"Science, though we love it, is still a narrow field for encyclopedic purposes and not the goal of Wikipedia articles." I had been looking for someone to state that point blank, do you mind if I quote you? cygnis insignis 05:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cygnis insignis I did say that didn't I? Sure you can use it, but I don't mean to say that science is bad. Just that for encyclopedic purposes, science jargon will go over the layman's head. Wikipedia is to educate people at their level, not a scientist's. Where do you plan on using it? And where did I use it? Leitmotiv (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
it is an unspoken position that you have merely concretised. Nothing in the statement says that science is bad, per se. The common made in response to a perplexed user during a discussion at Talk:Bat#Rename article to Bats or use scientific name. I'm writing up an essay or RfC, haven't decided, that opens up discussion of … well I'm not going to say exactly what, lest you think I'm implicating you. All you have done is stated unspoken assumptions that I think have confounded articles about animals, if you find it astonishing to re-read 5 months later that is all the better. If you want to be left out of the meta review I'm doing, I'm happy to comply. cygnis insignis 06:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
cygnis insignis Sure you can use it, I don't mind being in the meta. But context is everything! Glad someone finally recognized a quote of mine as worthy. Maybe it means I'm just barely readable now. hahah Leitmotiv (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The idea "educate people at their level, not a scientist's" or some similarly expressed sentiment is a recurring theme in discussions. Is the current 'level' of jargon in the article appropriate? cygnis insignis 07:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I am the best person to rate an article in that regard. My general opinion of any article is that it should start out as simple as possible in the lede, and as it's fleshed out, can become slowly more complicated while trying to simplify the language and educating with new language at the same time. Generally, more jargon-esque language, more scientific nuance, should be reserved for the end of subsections, or the article as a whole. But that's just my opinion, and it may not be fully informed. Astronomy articles such as Planet Nine often suffer from too much science at the beginning of the article. I've worked on simplifying Planet Nine's lede to simplify it for the layman, leaving the remaining body of the article to get progressively more in depth should the reader choose to learn more. I try to employ the KISS acronym. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
a reasonable position and I'm happy to discuss how that might apply. The title Planet nine is arguably jargon, and it may be interesting to stretch that to an analogy; I imagine our theoretical 'layman' is going to think the ninth plant is Pluto and any other interpretation is 'scientific nuance'. cygnis insignis 03:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 21:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned for edit warring per the result of the edit warring complaint. You may be blocked the next time you re-add remove the word 'underground' unless you have obtained a previous consensus on the talk page. A consensus requires that some number of editors express agreement with your change. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston Seems like you got your facts wrong. I'm not adding the word underground and never have. I'm deleting it because it is redundant. Also your warning is a little vague... Am I disallowed from doing it anywhere, or just a certain page? Also this seems to be against WP:BOLD, so what is your response to that? Leitmotiv (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply; I got the warning backwards. I've changed my sentence above. The warning applies only to the Pikmin 2 article. Notice that WP:BOLD is a guideline, while WP:Edit warring is a policy. A policy takes precedence. The warning will be a success if it persuades you to get the agreement of others. EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston Oh I agree... getting people to enforce a warning/ban is much easier than getting them to actually discuss the subject matter at hand however. Most people would use it as a chance to not do the very they they are arguing for - a discussion. The irony is not lost on me. The only thing I don't like about this whole ordeal is conflating my old edits with my new ones. I didn't just pick up the old mantle, I found new evidence that specifically addressed the concern of an editor brought in as a third opinion. No one has been able to address this, except for me. And here we are with no one discussing it.
One question for you. If people are actively avoiding discussing it and enough time has passed, at what point can I reedit it for lack of participation and no consensus? Leitmotiv (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No particular person is required to discuss, but people can be blocked for continuing to revert. You could also create a WP:Request for comment on the talk page. An RfC can be closed by an uninvolved party. After that happens, the result of the RfC is binding on everyone, even on those who did not participate. You would have to decide whether the single word 'underground' is so important that you want to go through the full process, which could take as long as thirty days though it is usually quicker. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. The issue is that I may bring it up, because I edit all redundancies of "underground cave" I find, so it would set a framework for other articles. I've never met so much nonsensical resistance before, to such a simple edit that is common sense. Thank you for your responses. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leitmotiv, in spite of the prior warnings to get consensus, you have continued removing the word 'underground' from articles. In the Underwurlde article you have been warring against User:Czar. I don't see you trying to get any agreement on talk pages to support this change. Your contributions show you have removed the word 'underground' more than a dozen times in the last two days. Can you explain why you shouldn't be blocked for continuation of the edit war? EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston Czar gave insincere info suggesting there was a cave above ground in the game by saying: "moving vertically is one of the defining aspects of the game, so worth accentuating the difference" - but there is no difference. There is no above ground cave in the game as supplied by my evidence. In my opinion, his revert was terribly insincere. If you click on my evidence in my edit link, you will see that the entire cave, the singular cave, is below the house. Czar started off his revert as arguing for the need to distinguish the difference in the Underwurlde article and my link suggests there is none, since the entirety of the cave is below a baseline. Now he is arguing semantics with me, rather than the need for the article itself requiring a specific need for distinguishing the difference. I honestly was hoping that when I went looking for evidence of the type of cave/s in the game that I would indeed find a cave in the sky, above ground if you will. But I found none. If I had, I would have moved along.
To why I shouldn't be banned: So I did originally revert when I saw evidence that contradicted his blind revert. I have not reverted on top of that. I'm not looking to push right up against 3RR and I am currently discussing all my edits on a case by case basis as you can see here: Talk:List of show caves in Germany, if they are contested. You remark that I haven't discussed it on Underwurlde is extremely premature since in my opinion, I haven't had the chance yet after supplying the evidence I felt was needed to back up my edit. I most definitely would have taken it to the talk page after Czar's recent revert and no I would not have instantly reverted - and this would have happened even if you hadn't posted just now, but rather, it would have come from my experience with my previous edits at Pikmin 2.
Concerning disruptive edits - I think that's also an exaggeration. You can see that I've edited probably around a two to three hundred articles with redundancies to this effect with only 3 being disputed: Pikmin 2, List of Show Caves in Germany, and Underwurlde. One of those was resolved in my favor. Please don't cherrypick Underwurlde while overlooking List of Show Caves in Germany. I feel Underwurlde could be resolved in my favor too, but if it reaches a conclusion like that in Pikmin 2, I don't intend on "having it my way", but will move on. So definitely some hyperbole by stating 3 contested edits (1 in my favor) out of a couple hundred is disruptive. I'm just being WP:BOLD and handling each disputed case in the talk pages. I have no intention of blind reverting, but I may revert if the reasoning isn't sound and I have evidence to back up my claim, like I did at Underwurlde. I may just avoid video game pages altogether if each one is irrationally contested as Pikmin 2 was. I may have "disrupted" two pages, but I also got thanked for my edits too. My intention going forward is to be be bold, but I'm not looking to start a fight. I like arguing the details of my edits, and I shouldn't be punished for that, because you should realize that there is a world where the word "arguing" doesn't have a negative connotation. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting a revert is edit warring, not being bold. You've been around long enough to know how BRD works. czar 06:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you're guilty too. I wasn't intentionally edit warring. I may be breaking a rule, but I'm not intentionally breaking a rule, nor intentionally edit warring. I don't spend my time on admin boards, nor arguing about the inner machinations of wikipedia, I just try to edit wikipedia to improve it. I'm literally looking at your original revert as being insincere. From my perspective, I posted the image link to show you where I was coming from because I saw a cave entirely underground, with no "vertical" relief above ground as your edit claimed. That's fine we disagree. I wasn't trying to revert for revert's sake, as evident in my previous post to EdJohnston. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A word of advice, if you were already warned to stop edit warring, saying 'but they did it too' or 'I didn't know' rarely helps. Especially when you are edit warring in multiple different articles against multiple different people over highly related issues. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out that it takes two to tango. Multiple, in this case, is 2. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Five Fingers of Funk moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Five Fingers of Funk, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 TT me 16:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: I don't understand. It had three reliable and independent sources. What I also find odd, is that I was never notified of an AfD and the article was quickly rushed without my input as creator. Thanks for that, I suppose. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: I know there wasn't a question mark in my statement, but there was an inherent question in my ping to you. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leitmotiv, not sure what your question is. But if it's in regards to the refs, there is currently a single in-depth ref from a reliable source. The others are a press release (neither independent or reliable), and a brief blurb from a non-reliable source. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 12:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wing Commander CCG[edit]

Wing Commander Collectible Trading Card Game was redirected back in 2006 from this, and grew a little on the franchise page but no sources have been added to that section. I did find a BGG page for it though. BOZ (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ: Hey Boz! I'm not sure what you need from me. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering if you had any sources to help that grow, potentially so that it could be split back out if there are enough. BOZ (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on User:BOZ/Games deletions for almost two months, and CCGs are a minority of what I have found so far (I am not done), but there were still quite a few, but if any of these pop out to you as potentially salvageable let me know and I will get them restored for you to work on:

BOZ (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like a chance to work on any of those, let me know and I will move them to draft space for you. BOZ (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I created the RIFTS CCG page and there was consensus to merge it with the RIFTS rpg article. I'm a little apprehensive about working on any of them because of that. Zatch Bell, as you know, I don't have any refs for that in book form. And anything I do have in book form, you do as well. Right now, I'm in final week with my Math class and when this term finishes I'm going to devote most of my time to a couple projects that need to be completed before the end of September. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving[edit]

Information icon Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines: "Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 kB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." – this talk page is 51.4 kB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scrye[edit]

Can you provide evidence that Scrye run a proper article on this game? I know it had some, I read it back in the day too, but you forgot to properly attribute it. As such, we can't be sure there was an article and not just a price list.

Second, please note that SIGCOV does require multiple (mimimum two) sources that meet WP:SIGCOV. We are tightening our standards these days, we are even creating Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Sources (and you are welcome to participate), but that also means we are getting rid of the occasional article that doesn't meet the project-wide standards. Of course, it's always better to rescue content than to delete it, hence my question if you can identify two SIGCOV-meeting sources and properly reference them for this article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: It appears there are two sources on the topic. Albeit, one is a primary source used to flesh out the article, however per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD it appears suitable. Be sure you're not confusing Scrye magazine with the Scrye guide. Here's a screen grab. There are two other brief mentions in the guidebook that show a release date and the other a color photo in the glossary depicting the front and back of the card with some other minor information. Also you mentioned it requires two sources per WP:SIGCOV, but I see no such requirement on that page. Specifically, it does state "In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article." Leitmotiv (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ha-hum. I'll ping User:VickKiang, who added the notability tag, for their opinion. So far I am seeing one borderline source (from the screen grab, thanks), and I think that's not enough. PS. From GNG: ""Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I edited my previous comment above a few times, make sure you check it out. I'm a little concerned that you are moving the goal posts. You cite some things that appear to be untrue (WP:SIGCOV) and as I mentioned on your log page WP:GNG has been discussed at length on the Echelons of Fury discussion I linked. "Generally" allows for exceptions. As noted in the notability guidelines, sources should not be trivial. I'd argue Scrye is not trivial. A brief mention in passing is trivial, but an article devoted to it, is not. Leitmotiv (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems relevant to repost what I posted on Piotrus' prod log page: Hello again! I've done a series of articles on CCG games. Two articles in particular are very similar to your claim that they "barely support [this entity]": Echelons of Fury and Echelons of Fire. There was a discussion about it here claiming the price guide was not notable, but that proved not to be the case. I understand that most price guides and catalogs do fall under this category and would normally agree with you, but the Scrye guide is exceptional in that it has more than a mere mention in a passing sentence (a dedicated article by Richard Weld, as you requested), but three full paragraphs devoted to its description. You'll note that one user that voted on whether to keep or delete the article mentions "I just saw the full title and forgot Scrye had actual articles." So, before you go digging into the other articles I created using the Scrye guide, you should note that Scrye passes WP:RS, WP:GNG, and WP:CORPDEPTH. If you won't take my word for it, the other commenter's word for it, then check out this Amazon review that stated "Quite useful listing of collectables with some information besides being just a list of CCGs" (emphasis mine). The review is now deleted, but at the time of review, was documented in that AfD discussion. Based on my outline above, I will delete the template for AfD. Leitmotiv (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Even if it's an RS, we have just one borderline source that might just pass SIGCOV, in your opinion it's RS, if I'm WP:AGF on the ref, we have 1 ref meeting WP:GNG. That isn't enough, sadly. WP:GNG says "multiple", which is generally 2+, although generally could also imply that 3 refs might be needed, see WP:3REFS (I know this is an essay, but I've seen a lot of articles with just 2 good refs being closed as no consensus). So I'll stand by my notability tag. VickKiang (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang I concur. Unless better references are provided, this should be heard at AfD. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang Continuing this, do we know what level of coverage is in "the Official Price Guide to Collectible Card Games"? Most of the three pages range is presumably taken by the simple list of cards with price values. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Redacting. I thought you were talking about Scrye. The guide by Lee is, for the most part, just a price list. But it does have an intro that I use to flesh out articles sometimes, including information on collection tips, understanding card value, condition guide, and bit of history to the genre of CCGs, as well as discussion on how one goes about entering the world of CCGs through booster packs, starter boxes, expansions, and starter decks. Each CCG entry has a brief description about the game (not nearly as lengthy as Scrye), along with the publisher info, release date, and sometimes other minor info. I'll admit, it's not the best of sources. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus:. Leitmotiv said it's for the most part just a price list, so IMHO it's not SIGCOV. IMO, this might need to be AfDed, sadly. VickKiang (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang If it is shorter than Scrye... sigh. Isn't there even a single article on strategy, or a review of the game that we could try to prop this up with? If not, we really need to think about a plausible redirect (merge would be fine too, if the target has room). Which is hard, the publisher page (WildStorm doesn't even mention the game right now... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Fastbreak (card game) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fastbreak (card game) 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/Fastbreak (card game) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

VickKiang (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Te lapa[edit]

On 5 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Te lapa, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that te lapa, an unproven and unexplained oceanic light phenomenon, might have been used by Polynesians to find islands in the Pacific Ocean? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Te lapa. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Te lapa), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tags[edit]

By the way, some other articles were tagged after the same discussion: Arleta Library Bakery & Cafe, Aviary, Bistro Agnes, and Yaw's Top Notch. Sharing in case you're interested in assessing notability for these well. Either way, happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer As a full-time non-traditional student, I am doing the bare minimum in between school and life. I don't foresee myself editing these articles, unfortunately. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Take care for now, ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AIV report[edit]

Hi. I saw you were having trouble reporting a vandal at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. You are replacing the instructions template, which is why your edits are being reported. What you want to do is place it in the section titled "user-reported" beneath the other reports. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding reports inside an HTML comment (edit this section here to see what I mean) doesn't work either. :) Please use WP:ANI for such cases, though; AIV is for obvious vandalism. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revertion in "List of Caves"[edit]

Hi, I noticed you undid some caves in the "cave by country list, because of lack of citation. Thank you for your input.

I am fixing this right now.

you may notice that A LOT of caves cited in this article are without citation. Will you remove all of them ?

olivier @Leitmotiv: Ospeleo (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ospeleo: Yeah there was a talk discussion about caves without citations years ago. I was the original trimmer of all uncited caves. It's not too much of an issue these days, but I removed some your recent ones. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Leitmotiv
I correcred everything.
I already did the reference research for this article I wrote from scratch
List of longest cave by country Ospeleo (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On that article you created, I'd cite the redlinks to give the article more authority. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More CCGs[edit]

Hey there! Just want to let you know that I recently created XXXenophile (collectible card game) and Star of the Guardians (collectible card game) in case you want to take a look at those. BOZ (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about your additions of reviews and further reading sections. Why don't you incorporate those into the main body of the article and cite them? Leitmotiv (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BOZ: pinging in case you didn't see my response. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the time I'm just starting a stub to get the article started, but I often come back to revisit those articles later. BOZ (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BOZ: Oh ok, so if I take one of your further readings, incorporate it into the article and delete it as a further reading, would that be the preferred way of using that material? Leitmotiv (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be just fine. :) BOZ (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look at that, I started a new article from an existing redirect of Imajica (card game). :) BOZ (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Hack Enemy cardback.png[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hack Enemy cardback.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ecclesiastical prisons[edit]

I've changed back your edit to Ecclesiastical prison -- I don't disagree with your crusade against the "subterranean cave" phrasing, but this one was in a quote from another source :) — Moriwen (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see it was a long quote. Sorry about that. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, Leitmotiv. Thank you for your work on Rimrock Draw Rockshelter. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, I had the following comments:

Hello! I want to inform you that I have checked your article and mark it as reviewed. Have a good day and thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


File:Gardner Cave map.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gardner Cave map.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Ирука13 11:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Nomination of Netrunner for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Netrunner 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/Netrunner until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Skylerblue77 (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eggs Benedict origin section[edit]

Hey, Leitmotiv. I noticed you undid my edit at Eggs Benedict. I made some comments on the talk page that may interest you: Talk:Eggs Benedict#The citations in the origin section. I'd like to hear what you think. ArcticSeeress (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links not dead[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peanuts&diff=0&oldid=1215254078 peanuts.com is not dead. You may need to check your connection. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Shift F5'd and it's dead for me. All it says is "Nope". Second link is also busted. Maybe you're just seeing a cached version on your pc? Try Shift F5 for me. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not cached--I had never been there previously. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found the issue. It's a bad url that needs to be fixed. Link is just "peanuts.com" which gives me the a black screen that says "Nope". If I add a www in front, I get the official site. Not sure how to fix. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked again and there is no problem on my end with "https://peanuts.com/" and it does not need a "www" subdomain. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/peanuts.com?proto=https&www=1 and https://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/curlie.org?proto=https ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is definitely an issue if some users like me, click on the link and get a bad site. The official link sends me to a black screen. It's not just me if I have to alter the url to get it work properly. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I 100% agree, but I also think the problem is on your end. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you could give a reason why that's the case I'd entertain it. But so far that's not helpful. If I click on other official links, they work, but Peanuts.com without the www does not work. I imagine this is an issue for other folks too. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No clue. Click thru here again and see what happens: Peanuts#External_links ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sorcery is this? It's the same method I used before and now it works? Leitmotiv (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q7115636&diff=2110064568&oldid=2110056404 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to do with that. I'll remove the DLs. Leitmotiv (talk) Leitmotiv (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata is a sister project to Wikipedia and it stores content used in it. {{official}} populates from Wikidata statements. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. But I saw nothing useful to help me in my dilemma if this is a "me" problem. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can hardly diagnose why this was an issue on your end either, but I can just say that I never experienced this "NOPE" issue. Sounds bizarre. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should have screenshotted it. The other site was doing something different, sometimes not loading at all. Well thanks for the discussion. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Let me know how I can help in the future ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Leitmotiv&oldid=1215393492"