User talk:Leuko/Archive November 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Bizarre Charles Manson mention you left on my talk page

You left a boilerplate warning on my talk page, warning me not to put "inappropriate external links" into articles. I ask, with all due respect, if you are smoking crack? How many, of the zero links I have added to that article, offended you? Uucp 03:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, VP left an automated message on the wrong user's page. I apologize for that, and I was going to remove the message from your talk page, but I've seen you've already done that. We all make mistakes, so please remember civility in your talk pages and edit summaries. Thanks! Leuko 22:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Miniature Art

Leuko,

I regret that I did not fully read the wikipedia policies when I posted our names and then later tried to post our website. I agree that based on neutrality our link should be left off. I would like to still request that our names be added to the list of miniature artists alongside those of our peers.

Thank you for watching over the content and again please excuse my mistake.

Wes 02:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Wes Siegrist - webmaster for The Miniature Art Society of Florida and The Miniature Artists of America

ps. I hope I have submitted this request properly. I listed my email under my preferences and will be signing off for the evening.

Hi Wes. There is no need to submit a request to me, I do not own the page. :-) You are more than welcome to add the names yourself without the link. In any case, I've added them for you. My only concern with the whole list of artists is the lack of references to verify that these artists exist and are notable for inclusion into Wikipedia. However, I'm too tired to research this tonight. Maybe tomorrow. But if you are aware of these artists, it would be great if you could help out by adding links to independent reviews from reliable sources to the article. Thanks! Leuko 03:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Leuko,
Thanks so much for adding our names for us! I can check through the list of names sometime after Thanksgiving and verify that they are practicing miniaturists. FYI: There's currently between 500 and 1000 active miniaturists submitting to the various exhibitions. The Wikipedia list of artists could grow substantially.
I will add according to the submission guidelines specific references and citations that will provide references for some of the artists currently listed.
Should you need to check anything sooner here are two URLS that will help: MAA Membership Roster of Artists (The MAA is the only Miniature Art Honor Society in the World.) MASF Artist Members online MASF is the largest Society of contemporary miniature artists in the world. They are based in the Clearwater, FL area and annually host in regional museums the largest exhibition of contemporary miniature art in the world. It's possible for a WFM World Exhibition to be larger but they are only held every four years with the next one being in Hobart, Tasmania in 2008. I can also email you the specific URL or password for the MASF full membership roster if you require it for your research and confirmation.
By the way, since "finding" Wikipedia I've found it a great resource for research into historic miniature art and I know the contemporary miniature art movement is indebted to Wikipedia for the exposure and validation it provides.
Wes 13:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Wes, thanks for the links and the offer of access to the membership roster, however I won't be needing it. While the membership roster will WP:V verify that the person is a practitioner of miniature art, it does not establish their notability for inclusion in Wikipedia - this would need to be independent newspaper articles/media reviews on notable websites of their work to meet those criterion. Generally, I find Google or another search engine works best for both purposes. Leuko 15:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Global University School of Medicine

Here you wrote "Perhaps we should entertain the notion that the nominator (Arbustoo) is associated with the school and wishes to remove what they consider negative press." Had you bothered to look at the article history you would have noticed I WAS THE ONE WHO NOTED IT WAS UNACCREDITED and likely to be a diploma mill. I remind you that WP:AGF is a policy. Also take a look at the List of diploma mills and view various articles and see what users constantly clean up and revert those articles. Arbusto 07:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I did look at the article history as well as your other contributions, and I know the comment I made was ludicrous. However, I wanted to make a point that it was no less ludicrous than one of your comments where you single out a new user for being exactly that. Anyone interested in the AfD can check the contributions of a user involved in an AfD to make sure that they are not a WP:SPA, there is no reason to add the comment that you did unless 1) you wanted to discredit the new user simply because s/he had an opinion which differed from yours or 2) you wanted to make an accusation that simply because they were agreeing with me, they must be a WP:SOCK. Either way, it is a personal attack against both the new user and myself, and a violation of WP:BITE. Leuko 15:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
New users generally aren't familiar with policies, including policies for inclusion and deletions. Whether the closing admin. considered that or not, I do not know. What I do know is that new user's voters generally aren't counted. Since you voted keep, please make sure the article passes WP:V and has some notablity. Perhaps consider finding a WP:RS that it is a med school. Arbusto 08:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not a vote, it's a discussion.  :-) The number of people voting one way or another shouldn't matter, the closing admin should weigh the strengths of the arguments made. There is still no need to tag new users as such - I am sure the closing admin can do his/her homework if it is a more contentious issue. This was obviously not a WP:SPA who was only created to vote in the AfD, and s/he continues to make contributions to WP. As for the article itself, since it is an unaccredited school, the WP:RS IMED which shows it is not an accredited medical school, despite its claims on its website, is cited, therefore WP:V is passed. There are no WP:RS citing it is a medical school because 1) it does not appear to be recognized by anyone at this time, and 2) according to the administrator on the talk page, just started classes two months ago. Leuko 16:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any proof this place exists outside of cyberspace? Arbusto 18:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
No, but what does it matter? 1) There are thousands of school articles on WP that only use online sources to prove/disprove their existence, and 2) if this place doesn't physically exist, then it could still be selling degrees online. Leuko 18:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
No proof of notability, no proof it actually exists, and still we have a wikipedia article on it. Arbusto 19:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's not notable according to your definition. Since there was no consensus reached at the AfD, that doesn't seem to be an overwhelming view. In any case, I am sure there are 1000's of articles that don't fit my definition of notability but yet they still exist on WP. Leuko 21:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


Bulletin board system

"Actually, why don't you reply on the article's talk page to get the input of more editors? Thanks. Leuko 19:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)" -- because you and i are in an 'edit war' over it. :D leuko, please leave the article as it was, it's benefitial to the people interested in it. thank you Darren palmer 21:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Even though I find these multi-threaded conversations confusing, please see response on your talk page. Leuko 21:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
sorry to confuse you! i'm pretty sure you know what i was talking about, especially since i quoted you. perhaps you are very busy with your deletion chores? regardless, you win, i hope you are happy.

Darren palmer 21:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I can remember what I said, but maybe confusing wasn't the right word - annoying is better since you have to constantly switch between two pages to follow a simple conversation. Also, some of the links that you are trying to add may be included if you make a convincing argument on the article's talk page, and other editors agree with you. Leuko 21:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Trans World Airlines- Jack Frye Link Removal

Attention Please:

Leuko 03/09 6/November/2006 UTC Sedona Legend


In regard to your recent note (on Talk.) I take offense to your words "inappropriate links." The links I added are certainly not inappropriate, and I would wager you are not even familiar with what the content of the pages added were. Several of the links that you DO deem appropriate could certainly be in question. For instance a link you do approve of: Paul Richter TWA Legend, is a website I myself originally created. At the launch it was a companion to the other 2 websites I created in regard to Jack Frye and Walter Hamilton. I respect your decision in stating that I should not post numerous links- I was not aware of the guidelines that seem to state that additional information in regard to the page topic is not permitted? I assure you I was doing so because the article notates Jack Frye numerous times. The pages I linked are more info about Frye than you will find anywhere on the net. What I vehemently disagree with is that you also removed the page, Jack Frye TWA Legend. My websites have been created in direct interaction with Jack Frye's family, certainly not spam, or inappropriate origin. Please refer this case to a higher editor, I feel we need someone to be a intermediary in this matter. Wikipedia is a public forum, that is the way it is billed. It should not be a biased work, that caters to only select editors.

Thank you,

Sedona Legend

Please don't take offense - this is a standard template message that all editors (should) receive when their link contributions which are contrary to WP guidelines are removed. Please see Template:Spam. The reason that I removed the sites (and now the third one as well, among others), is that making links to websites that you own is not permitted under WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. This is stated as a possible reason in the message. There are no "higher editors" to refer this too - WP works by building a consensus of numerous editors with equal say in the matter. In order to build a consensus that links to your websites should be included despite the policy to the contrary, you can try: 1) Discussing the inclusion of the links on the article's talk page, 2) WP:3O, 3) WP:RFC, 4) WP:RFM, and lastly, WP:RFAR. See WP:DR for more information. 00:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Leuko:

Thank you for your response. I appreciate your candid explaination, and I appreciate you being fair and across the board in regard to "which" links are added. I am aware of Wikipedia Policy at this point and respect it.

Regards, Sedona Legend

Aplus.Net

Hi, I believe you voted to delete Aplus.Net. One week after deletion they recreated it as Aplus.net. They recently renamed it back to Aplus.Net and started linking it around inappropriately. I spotted it and speedied it, but they've contended it, and it's undergoing a second deletion review. Please could you take a look at the article and vote (one way or another)? Many thanks!WolfKeeper 17:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for the heads up. Leuko 00:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Posts

You are an administrator, i had some posts from previous archives, i need to check on those, also i need you to correct few things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.2.80 (talk • contribs) .

First of all, I am not an administrator. Second of all, I have no idea what you are talking about. Third of all, When editing on User Talk or Article Talk pages, please sign your name using four tildes ~~~~ when making your posts. I would also suggest that you consider getting an account for yourself. Leuko 00:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Well buddy, you told me i can be blocked since i did something wrong, meaning you have the power, anyways, I am Gordon (and i am not giving last name), can you fix few things for me? But you want to be administrator? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.1.121 (talk • contribs) .
Yes, you can be blocked by an administrator, which I am not. In any case, I still have no idea what you are talking about. Please enlighten me and I will let you know if I can help you with your request. Leuko 22:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, you sound like an administrator, i am in touch with a member on wiki right now, have few things changed, i simply want few things added, i was accused of doing wrong things which i never did, will let u know wheni find details. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.0.86 (talk • contribs) .
Thanks for the compliment. :-) Since you are continuing to use a dynamic IP address, rather than getting an account, I can't figure out what article or what warnings you are talking about. Unless you want to fill me in on the details, this conversation is pointless. And if you want a few things changed, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Leuko 21:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof! 1.3

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Leuko! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 06:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Leuko 19:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Real Madrid - external links

Hello. I'd like to talk about this edit.

I've already discussed the topic with Kungming2 at his talk page. Allow me to base on what I wrote to him.

According to WP:EL if there are many fansites for the topic covered by the article, then providing a link to one major fansite (and marking the link as such) may be appropriate. The problem is that no big sports club (at least no big European football/soccer club) has one major fansite - usually there is one per country. And so Poland has RealMadrid.pl, Hungary - realmadrid.hu, Spain - realmadridfans.org, Denmark - realmadrid.dk and so on. I agree that links to blogs (!!) are a bit too much, but since Wikipedia encourages users to add links to most significant fansites, the ones I've mentioned definitely deserve a link - each provides info unavailable because of different reasons at the official website and in different languages. Sir Wolf of Poland 18:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

True, a link to one major fansite is acceptable per WP:EL. However, with 20+ links to fansites, the external links section was starting to look like a web directory, which Wikipedia is not. Since this is the English Wikipedia, why not a link to the major English language fansite. The links of foreign language sites can be added to the WP articles in that language. Leuko 19:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree, that adding a link to - let's say - a Real Madrid Unofficial Blog is quite funny, but I still firmly believe that it is good to provide the readers with a link to a fansite - at least in order to give them a source for news which concern different speculation, but also e.g. interviews etc. And since the English Wikipedia (not just this one, but still particularly en.wiki) is often visited by people who are not native English speakers, it would be appropriate (at least IMO) to provide them with a few non-English links, of course to pages which deserve it. And even when we restrict it to English, well... there is one big fansite in Spanish (realmadridfans.org), but when it comes to English, one fansite is Danish (realmadrid.dk) and one is the English version of the Polish RealMadrid.pl (AFAIK the only bilingual Real Madrid fansite in the world and moreover the only one which has interviewed the players of Real Madrid). Sir Wolf of Poland 20:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, WP is not a web directory, and 20+ external links are not really necessary for an encyclopedia. Also, it appears that you are a staff member of the sites which you wish to add. Under WP guidelines, this is to be avoided, since it can be a conflict of interest. Leuko 00:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not logged in, sorry, but it's still me :). As I've said, I agree that the number of links should be limited to just a few, but still issues such as sports clubs, music bands and other similar ones are by themselves fan-oriented, so I consider adding links to their (i.e. the club's, band's or whatever) fansites as logical as perfectly in accord with the WP guidelines.
As far as my being an editor goes - it's true and I'm by no way trying to pretend that I'm not. However, the article on external links states: If your page is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let unbiased Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link - that's exactly what I'm doing right now, no? :) 153.19.9.12 13:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I feel that adding dozens of external links to articles is not in accord with the WP:NOT policy, which states WP is not a web directory. It is an encyclopedia, and links to many fan sites does not seem to echo the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia. In any case, I suggest making these comments on the article's talk page (not my talk page), so a consensus of what different editors feel about the issue can be established, because neither you nor I are the ultimate authority on what belongs in the article. :-) Leuko 03:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ROSE Online

If you feel that failing to find any reliable sources on Google does not demonstrate a lack of competence with the search engine, then that's an obvious difference we have between us. However, it could be that your interpretation of what a reliable source is differs to mine. A possibility which I overlooked. Citing AGF and NPA though? Come on, get over it. There's certainly no bad faith involved, or instead of voting, I'd have speedily closed the nomination. That's how I work. - Hahnchen 04:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition to this, I find it almost impossible that you failed to find reliable sources on Google, whilst claiming to be a competent user of the search engine. Maybe it's because you're not familiar with computer games, that could have been of detriment to your search. But just using the search string - "Rose online" review - brought up this link on the first page of results. - Hahnchen 04:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
A one paragraph listing in a directory is a WP:RS? I guess our interpretations of what makes a reliable source differs. Leuko 23:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Instead of taking a look with your eyes to see what I had actually linked to, you just waived over it. This is probably why you failed to spot any reliable sources on Google. Maybe you don't feel that PC Gamer is a reliable source, in that case, our RS interpretation varies widely. I somehow doubt you can convince me over your competence with search engines if you failed to find any reliable sources. My comment on the AFD was perfectly valid, your stated reason for the nomination, was not. - Hahnchen 00:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
To further smash you poor interpretations of RS, I see that when you nominated the article, it already contained sources from Famitsu. I seriously think I may have made a mistake in criticising your lack of skill with Google, because now I think the true problem is your lack of skill in interpreting RS. That is, if you seriously think Famitsu is not classified as a reliable source. - Hahnchen 00:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Alright, we'll agree to disagree on WP:RS, but that still doesn't give you the right to insult other editors. Please WP:AGF. Leuko 00:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

How to delete UHSA article?

Hi, I saw you put "please provide [WP:RS that article is factually incorrect" in the article. Could you tell me what does it mean and how should I request this article to be deleted? Thanks. DrGladwin 23:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Leuko, I'm here to make peace. Yes, I could provide WP:RS here, then someone else might provide more WP:RS contradicting my WP:RS. The edit wars will never end. I'm tired of refuting this article. I've had bumpy relations with admins here, including an old friend and famous UHSA critic Azskeptic. The UHSA students are upset, the admins are upset, everyone is upset, people are getting banned, etc. The best thing to do in such situations would be to delete the article - that's how I would work. What do you think? DrGladwin 23:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks like JzG has already brought the article to AfD, and you've found the appropriate place to comment on the article's deletion. I don't think the article should be deleted, and I'll add my comments to that effect to the AfD. Leuko 00:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/e/u/User_talk%7ELeuko_Archive_November_2006_aeec.html"