User talk:Leuko/Archive October 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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

Montana Wilderness School of the Bible

what —The preceding unsigned comment was added by O2ZY (talk • contribs) .

Please see my comments on your talk page. They are pretty self explanatory. Please don't remove speedy delete notices on attack pages that you have created. Thanks. Leuko 22:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Denison & Porter

Leuko,

This is in regards to a proposed deletion of Denison & Porter (a recently formed hedge fund and real estate investment trust). I take offensive to the proposal to delete the listing of a legitimite corporation which is registered in the District of Columbia as well as a GmBh in Muenster, Germany. The description that was placed on Wikipedia was modeled after those of nearly every other non-public corporation listed.

Feel free to visit our up-and-coming website or to google us at Denison & Porter.

Thank you, Christopher Andrade chrisotpher.andrade@denisonporter.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonpor (talk • contribs) .

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. I am sorry that you took offense to my proposed deletion of the article that you started. It was not meant to be malicious, and it does say in the deletion notice not to take offense. My concern with the article is that it does not meet the notability requirements of WP:CORP for an article in Wikipedia. You note that it was recently formed, which is probably why I couldn't find any mention of the company in Google past its own website. Wikipedia is not a business directory, but rather it strives to be an encyclopedia. Therefore, there is a threshold for which things should be included, and those that should not. In any case, I've submitted the article to the AfD process, where the community of Wikipedia users will decide to either keep it or delete it. Please let me know if you have any questions. Leuko 01:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Mere Tuisalalo

Hello Leuko or Bula in my Language

topic written on Mere Tuisalalo I do not understand why you think it needs to be deleted?? individuals and intermarriages played a big part in Fiji's documneted and oral history. this item has relivance as to the connection the family has with the Turaga Na Rasau Title. at the time the marriage to Ratu keni signified the joining of two tribes, her details and family background are relievant to the article and to the people of Lomaloma and their history. Thank you Maikeli

Please see my reply on the article's talk page. Leuko 00:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

J&P

Hi Leuko and thanks for your note.

To start with, I re-posted this article [J&P] as I had the impression that the site was never saved (I was working on it in “preview mode” and thought I had not saved it prior to logging off last night). In fact I was kicking myself as I had to do all the typing again.

Which brings me on to the more important point; which is the basis of your deletion. I can’t see the justification for this (sorry never been come across a situation like this so far) so I summarise my argument below:

J&P is a household name in the Middle East having build most of the infrastructure in several countries, information which I started outlining in my article. It has a turnover of more than £1 billion. If companies such as George Wimpey, McCarthy & Stone and Barratt Developments some of which which are miniscule in comparison are listed in Wikipedia I don’t see why larger companies that have had a more significant global impact (albeit in other regions of the world than yours) should not be featured. Please note this was not an attempt to advertise J&P as I have no affiliations to this company whatsoever. The information I included was very similar to what's posted on the companies I site above.

Regards, StephP 21:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the reason that I tagged the article as spam (and two administrators agreed to delete it), was that the article read like advertising and had no references cited to indicate that it met the WP:CORP notability criteria. If evidence can be provided that the company meets WP:CORP, then a balanced, WP:NPOV article would be welcomed. Leuko 23:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi again.
The company meets no.2 of the WP:CORP criteria, if you had followed the reference I had provided in the original article (and that is why I provided it) you would have ended up here: [1]. Scroll down to no.41. Companies such as Acciona and Techint that feature on this very list (some ranking lower) have their own Wikipedia space.
If you want to verify that this source is not a mickey mouse journal itself, just read about it on wikipedia here: Engineering News-Record.
I cant see which part of WP:NPOV this article is breaching and I would be grateful if you could point it out to me. In my humble opinion the content is no different to the accepted article on say Crest Nicholson. Is it the fact that I presented it within an infobox template rather than as a narrative? Or is it the fact that this is not a British company? StephP 00:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Leuko. Just to save you some time, the original article has now been accepted (by both administrators) with all the original information. I have pasted everything on the talk page of J&P’s wikipedia article, if you care to read it. If I were you I would refrain from proceeding with similar hasty actions in the future and instead would take some time to thoroughly read the information provided first. It would save us all a good deal of time and allow us to concentrate on contributing more constructively.StephP 16:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, when I first read it, it sounded like spam. I did not mean anything malicious by it, just trying to make sure Wikipedia remains an encyclopedia, rather than a WP:NOT a business directory full of spam articles (which is what it was becoming before the addition of WP:CSD#G11. Leuko 00:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

CSD categories

I was unaware of that, so thank you for the note! | Mr. Darcy talk 01:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: The Erotic Network

Care to explain why you slapped the article with a speedy deletion label?? I wrote an article describing TEN, which is an adult TV network, don't see how any part of the article is an advertisement. It merely describes the Network and what type of programming it offers. Need explanation or the template will be taken off.HeMan5 03:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see my reply on the article's talk page. Also, please note that as the article's author, you aren't allowed to remove the speedy delete notice. Leuko 02:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you think the article should come back up and go through the AFD process? It might be notable enough (I've certainly seen worse). But there is just enough content that some other opinions might do some good before deleteing it outright. --DanielCD 03:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I would be fine with that. I have no problem with having an article on this subject, but it read like an advertisement and had a lack of any references which indicate its notability or meeting of WP:CORP guidelines. Leuko 04:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
K. I went ahead and put it up for AFD, so we'll see what others have to say about it. --DanielCD 04:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Eli Harari

What about say, Paul_Otellini ? Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gkklein (talk • contribs) .

As far as I can tell, that article is not directly copied and pasted from another website. Leuko 07:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

MPOGD

Unfortunately, I can't find anything to cite the fact of the site's size beyond MPOGD itself, which probably wouldn't do as it's hardly impartial. Wouldn't the fact that I referred to it as 'one of the largest' as opposed to 'the largest' offer me a bit of leeway? It does have close to 2700 games listed currently and it literally gets larger every week or so. That's pretty big. HalfShadow 02:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the cornerstones of Wikipedia is verifiability, so if there is no external reliable source to prove that it is in fact one of the largest sites on the internet or otherwise meets the requirements of WP:WEB for inclusion in Wikipedia, then it should be deleted as non-notable. I have no problem with the article, but in order to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, the policies and guidelines must be applied uniformly and fairly. Just add references to the article to prove that it is notable and meets WP:WEB, and then I would support keeping it. Leuko 02:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there any way I can word this so I won't need to cite it? I'm having a real problem finding anything 'official'. I was hoping what I used would be good enough; the guy's a programmer. HalfShadow 17:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Wait. No, If I could do that, then it wouldn't be notable, and then it'd get deleted anyway. Ai... HalfShadow 17:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
To the contrary, if a reliable source could be added to prove it meets WP:WEB notability criteria, then it wouldn't get deleted. In its current state, with just a claim of notability, but no proof, it would more likely be nominated for deletion. I am sorry, but WP:RS specifically mentions personal websites as not being reliable sources. Leuko 17:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I'll just call it a day then. The place is mentioned all over the place but almost all of them are just standard links. The few places I've been able to find that mention the site in any detail wouldn't be considered reliable. I don't think this is worth the effort any more. HalfShadow 17:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that. In that case, if you want the article deleted, just blank it, and add the {{db-author}} tag to it. Leuko 17:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry about it; I only added it for convenience's sake anyway. 'Every mistake I make is a lesson learned.' HalfShadow 17:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not really a mistake. Sorry to see the article go, but my wiki philosophy is making sure Wikipedia maintains the highest standards of being an encylcopedia, rather than a web-directory, vehicle for spam or vanity. I'm definitely not saying the MPOGD article was any of these, in fact I believe it might be notable, but the policies and guidelines such as WP:V and WP:WEB must be applied fairly and equally. Leuko 17:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Schools

I guess I'm going by the fact that there are dozens and dozens of articles in existence. Anyway, I don't feel it falls under speedy deletion. Until consensus is reached, it's best to leave it there. -- Merope Talk 19:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Emergency Medical Technician

The reason I believe it to be spam is because the user had done nothing but post links to about.com on multiple pages. You'll probably want to revert the rest of them too. Pizzapotamus 21:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC) = Pizzapotamus

Ok, but what about the link itself is spam? It seems to be a relatively reliable source with pertinent information... Leuko 22:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I placed the links on those pages because the editorial content on the linked pages is relevant. I didn't see anything in any of the articles that was distinctly wrong or in need of editing. The information I write covers all first aid and CPR topics; professional EMS is only one of the subjects. Brouhardr 12:38, 10 October 2006

not ok

p.s. It is not o.k. you deleted my page without warning at first. Then I must typed it twice. Pressume my good intentions first and come to my page to talk before you delete anything. Greetings from Belgrade. --Mladifilozof 02:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not deleted your page, I have just listed on Articles for Deletion, where a discussion will ensue for the next 5 days to see whether a consensus of WP editors think we should keep or delete the article. Leuko 02:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
hi leuko! i also do feel you could have perhaps initiated a debate over the article before listing it as AfD, as suggested here. i made a comment to that effect here on the actual debate, and it seemed fitting to mention it here too. nice pic of the day btw! cheers, Mujinga 19:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I see your point, but this is much more effective. With AfD, multiple editors offer their views in a quicker period of time, rather than just me and the article's author on the talk page. I was just trying to get a consensus, and this seemed to be the best way to do that. Leuko 00:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Testmasters

I was unaware that testmasters was even up as an article or had even been deleted. Is there any place that would tell me this? I am wondering also why Testmasters cannot have an article on Wikipedia, but The Princeton Review, and Kaplan, Inc both have articles on Wikipedia. This doesn't make sense to me. 64.131.205.160 06:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you click on "History" and then "View logs for this page" you can see it's been deleted twice before, once as a result of an AfD discussion. The reason the article was deleted was: 1) it was blatant advertising spam for the company (WP:CSD#G11), 2) it was a repost of advertising material already deleted (WP:CSD#G4), and 3) it is a non-notable company. Kaplan and Princeton Review have aritcles because they are notable. I could find no way in which Testmasters met the WP:CORP notability criteria required for an entry on enWP. Leuko 14:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Squats

Hi, the addition of ...Netherlands and ...Spain to the original UK squats AfD was not, imo, carried out in accordance with AfD procedure and I was unable to delete them as part of the same process. The titles of any and all articles in an AfD listing should be in bold at the top of the debate, and in the case of non-near-as-dammit identical articles they should really be listed simultaneously to ensure they all receive the same consideration. Please relist them again if you wish. Thanks, Deizio talk 15:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've managed to list them all under a unified nomination. Leuko 15:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

School for Robots

I just started the School for Robots article, and had just added a summary.. I paused to upload related images, and in the meantime it was marked for speedy deletion by you. I did not have time to add more information. I am curious when you say I should cite external information to make it know that my entry is valid. However I did have a band website link to a full page. How else can I validate that the band actually exists? I am new to this site, and have read the FAQs, and it still remains unclear to me how I prove that this entry is relevant. Thank you for your information, Blake

Hi, while one of the major principles of WP is verifiability, that is not the issue here. What is at issue is notability: please see WP:BAND. Does your band meet the criteria for a WP entry listed here, and can that be verified with valid, external reliable sources? (Which do not include the band's website, but would include bonafide media coverage/reviews). Let me know if you have any more questions. Leuko 05:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Kronprinz

You may also want to note other article creations by the user Erzherzogin. All are covered under articles with English names. Charles 01:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, 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. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). 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 02:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Großherzog

Rather than tagging something for deletion for lack of context, would you please next time try to give me a few more minutes to add some? Incidentally, this article has enough context, as it is! - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't take offense, but I didn't feel that a dictionary definition translating a foreign language term into English was context per-say. Also, en.Wikipedia already had an English article on the subject. Leuko 22:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Britt

Could you please supply a response to the rebuttal I provided for your deletion flag on my article: Andrew Britt.

Regards, Andrew —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arb1027 (talk • contribs) .

I am sorry I am not able to find your response anywhere. Did you put it on the article's talk page? Because then the only person to see it would be the admin who actually deleted the article. But like I said on your talk page, Andrew Britt is not the appropriate spot to post information about yourself, because that's the encyclopedic part of the Wikipedia website. User:Arb1027, however, is available for personal information about yourself. Please see Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:User page for more information.. Please let me know if you have any questions. Leuko 01:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

VP

I are you using VP 1.3 if not please see [[User talk:Betacommand/Sandbox|this for the download. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 03:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism ? !!!

Hello Leuko ,I Recently recieved a vandalism message from you regarding 1976 in Music. On the Contrary I was Not Vandalising but actually I was in the middle of Alphabetising Correctly the albums under each category! Please respond! - The Equaliser 23:30 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when I looked at the diff, all I saw was a lot of stuff being deleted without any explanation in the edit summary. I'll remove the warning, and please continue with my apologies. Thanks, Leuko 22:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hause of Howe

Hi - I'm not sure why you just marked my article as advertising. I live in CT not in CA (look at my IP). I have nothing to do with this brand -- other than I love their stuff. See my discussion for more info and consider removing that advertising thing. --Citracyde 02:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, 1) I can't look at IP's, and 2) I can't see the talk page of the article, because it's been deleted already. You'll have to contact the admin that deleted the article. Just in the future though, you might want to consider adding information on the social context/importance of the brand, rather than just a list of where to buy it, and a link to the company's website. That would make it look less like an ad. Make sure to cite reliable sources when establishing notability of the brand. Leuko 02:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I had just welcomed Citracyde as a fairly new user and made some sugestions on things he could work on around Wikipedia. He responded that he might work on fashion designers. The next thing I know, I see your warning to him on my watchlist. I think he made a good faith addition, regardless of the merits of the article he did not get to finish -- any chance you would take the {advert1} warning off his talk page? Thanks! --A. B. 03:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps the advert1 was a bit hasty. I can get a little overzealous with my severe dislike of spam. Though I really didn't see it as a "warning- you will be blocked soon" but more of a heads up on proper encyclopedic tone and content, but I'll remove it. Leuko 03:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! And thanks for offering the advice you gave him. --A. B. 03:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Samsquanch

Hey Leuko... my bad on the deletion of the {db-band} tag, as you'll proibably have seen, I contested it bu {hangon}, made edits, and nuked it by accident.

Ive added radio airplay onto the talk page, and it's listed on the article page as well. It's indie radio - but it should satisfy A7. Also, assuming the page gets to stay up, which I do believe it should: what kind of source would the "Widely known" require for citation? Newspaper article? Reason being, I'm not sure if you know the towns and indie music scene of Southern ontario, but, it's very home-towny... and when it's stated that "Widely known", well, it's just one of those "hey have you heard of Samsquanch" kind of things - kind of obtuse and objective. (insert: but nonetheless relevant to the discussion at hand)

Since this has also been posted on the article's talk page, I'll reply there. Leuko 20:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

But the peafowl thing is breaking news

See the talk page Talk: Green Peafowl. It's the source for more than one species. Frankyboy5 23:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything other than a MSN group reporting this? Because that is not a reliable source. If it gets reported in main stream media or peer-reviewed scientific journals it can be added, otherwise it's WP:OR. Leuko 23:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that some people do believe there is more than one species of Green Peafowl. Did you see the golden colored one??? That's very strange indeed. And the reason why this site is so interesting is that it has some photographic proof. The most unfortunate thing is that many photos don't appear. They say it's website designed for individuals truly interested in the Natural History of members of the monophyletic phylum Pavoninidae. Peafowl, African Peafowl, Green Peafowl, Dragonbirds,Crested Argus, Great Argus They also might not want to make theit findings so public and it's a private site. Frankyboy5 00:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see reply on the article's talk page. Leuko 01:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

RIT Anime Club

The article I created was marked for speedy deletion. I feel that the size of the club compared to others and the inclusion of an article in a major magazine was enough to determine notability. Was there some other way I was supposed to assert it? EvilTaxi 22:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

While articles in a reliable sources would be enough to assert notability, I didn't see the source listed as being reliable/notable per the policy. However, if evidence of notability can be found, I would welcome the article. Leuko 22:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Newtype (magazine) is a widely published periodical, available in major bookstores and most stores that sell anime-related material. The article that I am referring to was published in the July 2005 version. How do I prove its printed existence? EvilTaxi 03:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I had never heard of the magazine before, and was not sure if it was a reliable source. However, even with the single article, I don't believe it meets Wikipedia's primary notability criterion, which requires multiple, non-trivial sources. The proposed organization notability criteria require 1) the primary notability criterion (since I couldn't read the single article provided, I was not able to evaluate whether it was trivial or not, and 2) that the organization's activities be national or international in scale. As a group of people that watch anime at a single university, I don't believe that condition is met. However, if you wish, I would suggest your nominating the article for undeletion at deletion review. 20:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
That would be great. I will continue looking for more reliable sources to reference in the meantime. 129.21.39.188 02:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Leuko,

Can you tell me what article you believe I "vandalised"? If you look at my contributions my entire time spent here has been focussed on attempting to -reverse- vandalism on other articles. I am extremely upset to be accused of partaking in that which I am trying to prevent from occurring. Your accusation on my User Talk page does not reference a specific article. Was this a mistake? Ginsengbomb 17:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Leuko,

I've discovered the source of the misunderstanding. If you look at the history of the article on Pikesville, Maryland it's plain what happened. I was attempting to revert vandalism by an anonymous IP edit. At the same time, another editor was doing the same. Unfortunately, I the anonymous vandal had made two edits and I had only caught one so I was accidentally reverting to the -first- vandalism he had made. Worse still, the other Wiki person who was attempting to correct the vandalism had already made his correction, so my own "rvv" correction appeared to be -adding- something when in fact it was an accidental reversion to an early vandalisation. If you look at the first of the two anonymous IP edits before my "rvv" edit you will notice that the sentence I appear to be adding in my "rvv" actually came from the first of the two anonymous IP edits.

Regardless, that's clearly where the misunderstanding came from and I'm merely thankful that you caught my mistake. I'll try and be more vigilant and careful in my corrections.

Ginsengbomb 18:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow that is weird, but it definitely looks like a mistake. Looking at your contribs of fighting vandals, I'll WP:AGF, and remove the warning from your talk page. My apologies, and thanks for bringing the error to my attention. :-) Leuko 21:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk

I realized I put talk under user page, you should have told me that in the first place, i will put it where it belongs, i thought that's talk because it only had one post. But anyways, my post still has merits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.1.70 (talk • contribs) .

This was mentioned multiple times by people other than me. Leuko 22:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's skip it, but I did not see it, the reason is, i am disappointed at administrators here, so i was angry, ok. But anyways, the post is ok now. In the past, i had problems, nobody wanted to listen to a reason, so well, crap happens, every time i tried doing something good, it was reversed, false information was spread about me, so i staged war which i won, against many. I wanted to contribute, instead, they kicked me out. You have no idea how many administrators do not belong here, way too many.Well, whatever...

Tuolumne River

Hi Leuko, I apologize for posting a commercial rafting company. I am new to wikipedia and I noticed that another commercial company was posted under the tuolumne river page. The other website I posted, http://www.tuolumne-river.com is an informational site about the Tuolumne. Thank you, Tessa

No problem, welcome to wikipedia. Please see WP:SPAM and WP:EL - commercial links that only exist to advertise are not allowed in Wikipedia, and they should be removed, and I urge you to do the same. Again, welcome. Leuko 02:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert or self-revert

Hello, Leuko, I saw the warning that you posted on the Talk page of 207.47.72.50. You noted that you had reverted that user's changes to Gaydar, but the History log makes it look like this was a self-revert. I posted a "thanks for the self-revert" yesterday to a (different) anonymous user, but now I'm thinking that maybe there is a (CVU?) tool that makes it look like a self-revert, and I need to consider that possibility in the future. Is this true? --Pawl 14:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey - I am using VandalProof to find/revert vandalism. It uses the RSS feed of RC, so there is a slight possibility of a revert collsion (edit conflict). Probably the anon IP user reverted him/herself at the same time I was. WP only recorded the self-revert in the page history, but in fact I was reverting as well. VP didn't recognize the self-revert and automatically left the warning on the talk page. I am not aware of any tool that intentionally makes things look like a self-revert. Leuko 20:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. BTW, I corrected the link to VandalProof in case anyone else reads this to make it easier to follow. (I feel a little odd about correcting your words; sorry if that is a faux pas.) Pawl 21:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Oops. Thanks for the fix. :-) Leuko 21:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

High-definition television

I sent in an edit and it was rejected. I was purely trying to add a site for help reasons only. There are plenty of other like sites on there that should be removed if ours is not helpful. We do not advertise on our site or sell anything but rather provide information for HiDefinition Entertainment and media. Please let me know if this site can be added to wikipedia and I will repost......www.hidef.com to searched pages: High Definition and HiDef.

Thank you for careful consideration.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.111.73.2 (talk • contribs) .

Your adding of the link is External link spamming per WP:EL - it is primarly being added to promote the website, and should not be added. I have left the official government websites on HDTV - that should be plenty of info. Leuko 22:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so quick to remove links that are helping people by serving valuable information. I agree that links to promote products should not be left up. The links that I replaced on HDTV were up for months and are good informational sites. Someone was taking them down and replacing them with adsense sites so I reverted them and will continue to do so. Look at those sites and then determine if they are worthy. These are not links to best buy or plasma-flat as other people put up. You can go to far in policing sites just because they are not.org. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.43.119.169 (talk • contribs) .

I did look at them. They seemed to be non-notable sites that were not reliable sources, so I came to the conclusion that they were link spam - they only existed to drive visitors to these sites. Prior to reverting, please use the article's talk page to see if there is a consensus for the addition of these links among registered editors. Leuko 23:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Supposed vandalism, should not have been deleted on Guitar Hero

Under the "Guitar Hero" page I simply felt the need to emphasize something. Under the "Scoring" heading, it is noted that "The final score, along with overall accuracy percentage and longest note streak, are reported at the end of a song. It is not uncommon for a song to contain 400-600 notes or more. A rating of 3, 4, or 5 stars will also be displayed. The number of stars is based on the player's score in that song. A precise scoring chart for each difficulty with the total notes for each song can be found at GameFaqs.

I simply added to the ending "or at the origin of the discovery of the start ranking system, scorehero.com" I simply added the initial source to the list as opposed to a source which took it from there. Gamefaqs did not initally come up with the star score chart, so why should they receive credit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.251.9.153 (talk • contribs) .

Sorry, it looked like you were just trying to insert a link into the article. Are you able to verify your claim with a reliable source? Leuko 19:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Supposed Vandalism: World Industries was not vandalism

Even though there were many changes going on the World Industries page, all of them were for the better. I was trying to find a way to make certain boxes dissapear that were wrapped around the text restricting it to one straight line instead of paragraphs. 65.184.191.30 07:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

All I saw was the last edit which just added "<nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki>" to the article. Please use the "Show Preview" button to make sure that the article looks the way you want it to before hitting the "Save Page" button. This avoids cluttering up the recent changes list, as well as the article's history, and avoids looking like vandalism. Thanks for the heads up though. Leuko 07:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Military use of children vandalism -response to rollbacks

Hi there. Just thought you might be interested to know that you rolled back some edits in this article here [2] which were promptly reinstated just moments after you did so. Risker 07:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

My only issue with the edit that I rolled back was that it introduced contentious information without provided appropriate sources for WP:V and WP:NOR. Leuko 08:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Leuko you first removed my edits, and then placed a {{sources}} tag on this article. Please see the cited San Francisco Chronicle article. Everything is sourced from that. There is no OR and the chronicle is a "reputable publisher" so it does pass WP:V--snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 08:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Please see response on your talk page. Leuko 08:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Leuko I'm sorry if you took it the wrong way. I was only annoyed that people kept asking for citations when I had already provided them. And I don't think reporting to an admin is something that contradicts WP:CIVIL anyway. Actually its a very civil thing to do instead of edit warring. And just so you know WP:CITE does not state that a citation should be place after every single word or sentence. I provided the citation after the entire text. There is no problem with that. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 08:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
No, not at the end of every sentence, but you _could_ make it a little easier to find then the end of a different section. Using inline citations would allow you to cite the same source more than once, which would help with some of your more contentious allegations. In any case, threatening someone with reporting them to an admin to get them banned or blocked is actually a "more serious" offense under WP:CIVIL. Leuko 08:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
FWIW I think the article itself is probably bearable now (the inflamatory language has been taken out and I think it is now all sourced; but a little disproportionate). Thanks for watching this article suffers a lot of unsubstantiated stuff (especially ref the middle east) and vandalism so please do keep following it. --BozMo talk 09:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
It's on my watchlist. :-) Leuko 16:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

VP revert

[3]
How in the world is that vandalism? -- Steel 17:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it wasn't clearer, but VP didn't use the custom edit summary that I painstakingly typed. The edit in question is personal opinion, and WP:OR, thus really doesn't belong in WP, unless it can be sourced. Leuko 18:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I went to revert it myself but you got there first, so I don't have a problem with it being removed. I was just a bit confused as to why it deserved one of those vandalism warning thingys. -- Steel 18:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that was the only way (I thought) that I could use a custom edit summary to explain my edit, but for some reason VP didn't use it, and placed the warning by default. I'll go remove the warning. Leuko 18:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Using VandalProof

Please make sure to use proper edit summaries and never to perform automated reverts on edits that are not obvious vandalism (or self-reverts). This is the edit I have in mind. Using rollback (in the case of admins) or auto-scripted revert messages (in the case of others) is equivalent to saying "that edit was so worthless that it does not justify an edit summary in removing it". Please treat it with care. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have tried to leave more informative edit summaries, but I am using VP 1.3, and no matter what I type in the edit summary box, it always just leaves the standard default message. I guess I should file a bug report with the developer. Leuko 23:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism based on what? Bridges Academy

I attended bridges academy for 4 years. Who are you to say what I wrote down is true or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.215.235.220 (talk • contribs) .

Because you did not cite your sources for this information, it does not belong in Wikipedia per WP:V and WP:NOR. It is vandalism because you created an attack page without any reliable sources for your information. Leuko 17:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Sources? I attended the school. Please revert it back. i'll add sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robert Meyers (talk • contribs) .
Sorry, but even though you attended the school, your edits amount to original research, and are unverified attacks at that. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Please add sources before attempting to add your material back in. Leuko 17:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I provided First hand eye witness info backed up by sources, essays written by other allumni and year books provided by the school itself. You have reverted several times based on nothing. You barely had time to even read the changes to the article. The article was expanded so other alumni can contribute to it. You sir are ignorant and your methods inane. Good day. The original poster of the article should be along in a few hours to post, a new addition.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robert Meyers (talk • contribs) .
Please stop making personal attacks. It isn't helping your case. Leuko 18:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Leuko, to you and to many administrators, people like bridges is vandalism, you think you owe this place, that's why we had problems with administrators like you before, when I ask somebdoy to correct few things, you are not around, but when i do something allegedly wrong, all of you get together like cops around donuts. shame on u.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.1.111 (talk • contribs) .

First of all, I am not an administrator, just an editor. And second of all, please adjust your attitude to be more in line with WP:CIVIL. Leuko 22:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert to "The dozens"

I am absolutely sure that my edit to "The dozens" is not existant. but widely used. Vandalism implies that it was not only unture, but intentionally malicious. Do not consider things vandalism if they are unfamiliar to you. :-( -71.76.48.79 18:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, but I recognized my error before you contacted me, and have reverted the article to your version, removed the warning on your talk page, and recorded the error in my log (down to 98.8% accuracy - darn). My apologies, but I just saw the diff which in a normal article would have been inappropriate, but in the context of this article it is absolutely appropriate. Again, my apologies. Leuko 18:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC
It is allright then, I forgive you. If you had not seen the context, then the text was vandalism. After all, how revealing is the title, "The Dozens" ? - 71.76.48.79 02:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

XANA

You really should think twice before revert. There was no point to revert my edit on XANA, anyway not without explainations on discussion page. 160.228.152.6 23:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but there seems to be a bug in Vandalproof that does not allow me to leave custom edit summaries to explain my actions on reverts which are not super-obvious vandalism, and instead just uses the default, no matter what I type in the edit summary box. I've reported the bug to the author, but haven't heard anything back yet. The reason that I reverted your edit was that it used a nn forum post as a reference for the added information. This is not a reliable source per WP:RS, and adding such a link could be seen as WP:SPAM. Leuko 00:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
It's the forum where the writers themselves replied.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.228.152.6 (talk • contribs) .
And how is an anonymous internet forum verifiable? You really don't know who is posting there, thus all forums are not reliable sources. Leuko 22:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Valley Primary School

Hello. I suppose that you are thinking that this article should be taken to prod. Have a look at the website of the school. If not satisfied you can write in my user talk or you may delete the page, I don't have a problem. Thanks, --Ujjwal Krishna 15:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason I originally prod'ed the article was that primary schools are inherently not notable, but since it seems to have won some awards it may be notable. However, I would like to see the awards mentioned on the school's website to be verified by a reliable source. Leuko 16:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit of Montgomery Blair High School Article

I concede that my statement about Asian Americans raising the diversity level as a whole at Montgomery Blair High School in my edit may have been too opinionized to be worthwhile. However, as a freshman in the Blair Magnet Program, I would like to state that the course is called "Fundamentals of Computer Science" and not "Computer Programming Fundamentals" or whatever the name for the course was in the article. Seeing as I go to this school, perhaps you could consider that I may know more about it than those who do not. 69.138.181.59 16:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The program I am using (VandalProof) automatically reverts all edits on an article if one is identified to be vandalism, because it (and I) assume that all contributions will thus be vandalism. Feel free to correct the title of the course, but please don't add your personal opinion on various ethnic groups at your school. Thanks. Leuko 16:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Is this to say that if I can provide actual evidence, my edit will stay? Because I can't see logically how Asian Americans undiversify the school.
If you can find a reliable source to verify your edit, then it would be vandalism to remove it. But good luck finding a published article in the mainstream media regarding the ethnic groups at your high school. :-) Leuko 22:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nu Lambda Chapter of Kappa Sigma

I have to admit, I am unclear on what "deserves" to be on Wikipedia and what doesn't. However, to just outright delete an article without discussion is plain fucked up.

Fraternity chapters (not "frats") are very much notable for Wikipedia articles. Every chapter has rich history, traditions, and events that's worth noting. We created this page as a way to share this information with our past, current, and future members. We are simply trying to document our history. Please restore the article and we can discuss further. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jgladding (talk • contribs) .

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia, and I am sorry that your first article has been deleted. Please note that I did not delete your article -- I just proposed it for deletion under the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. Articles which qualify for these criteria are routinely deleted from Wikipedia without discussion by an administrator (which I am not), so someone else had to agree to delete the article. Similarly, since I did not delete the article, I can not restore it - you must ask the admin who deleted it, or ask for a deletion review.
As to why the article was deleted, the primary reason was that it did not assert notability of the subject for inclusion into an encyclopedia. Per the proposed organization notability guidelines, individual frat chapters are inherently not notable, unless they are the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial press coverage. As it stood, the article was a vanity article, about yourselves. Wikipedia is not a free web host - if you want to document your chapter's history to share with members, please buy your own webspace and put this information there. Finally, please remember to avoid profanity and be civil in your discussions. Thanks. Leuko 21:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, I asked you to assist me,instead you put warnings on my talk page, this guy revealed my name and you dont care about it, and edotr or administrator same thing, you have the power to block people, so you have power, period. Also, i am civil, but do not use this against me in every of your reply, you look ignorant and uncivil. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.3.108 (talk • contribs) .
I believe I did assist you - I provided information on your talk page about appropriate WP procedures, and I told you on this page how to ask for a deletion review of your article. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "this guy revealed my name". It is considered a guideline on WP to sign your posts on talk pages so that you take responsibility for what you post there. If you did not sign your post, someone else may have done it for you. I do not have the power to block people, however, if you continue to make personal attacks, I can request an administrator to block you. Leuko 22:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


Cleveland

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that the change of mine that you reverted was itself a reversion of an unexplained deletion. I appreciate your patrolling the page, and understand that the word "gay" is frequently added as vandalism, but please take a look at the page history before reverting.  :-) Confiteordeo 21:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but in this case it also appears to be unverified original research. The citation provided mentions gentrification, but does not mention gays. Leuko 22:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
You're right about that citation, but the fact remains that gays are moving into those neighborhoods, as this site and this one point out. There are plenty of other resources that say the same thing. It would have been better to make a note on the talk page and/or slap a "citation needed" notice on it. Regardless, it was NOT vandalism, which was the point I was trying to make. Confiteordeo 23:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I did not see those references as verifying the information presented. Please feel free to add the information back in. Sorry, but I don't think I ever called it vandalism, or left a vandalism warning on your talk page. Unfortunately, VP does not allow me to leave custom edit summaries to explain the reversion. Also, sometimes, I think the {{cn}} is a cop-out, and unverified information should just be removed until it can be properly sourced. Leuko 23:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
You didn't leave a warning on my page, but you did list my edit under the vandalism stats on your user page, which is why that's what I thought you were implying. I think the current version by EurekaLott is fine, although it's sad that we can't even use the word "gay" on the page without people assuming the worst. Also, we shouldn't have to cite every single word on a page. The article would be half numbers! Confiteordeo 00:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
No, sorry that is not what I was implying... That log is a record of all edits made with VP, which are not all vandalism in the classical sense. Sometimes I should go and edit something manually, but I get lazy, and just use the 1-click button. I really should watch that though. I will mark it as a "mistake" in the log. And personally, I believe in citing everything that is not "common knowledge" for all mankind. I don't live in Cleveland, so how could I verify the information presented without an appropriate citation? I feel it is better to have a page which is half full of citations, than a page full of unverified original research and personal opinion (which can not be differentiated from the truth without citations). Leuko 01:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Edwards (actress) edit?

Hi. I'm unsure why my inclusion of the link to the fansite was removed. While I do run it, it's the closest thing she has to an official site (she does contribute) and has detailed information found on it so I thought it would be useful to those curious about her as there's not much on her on this site. Thanks. --Justbreathe17 01:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Per Wikipedia's external link guidelines, links to fan sites should be avoided. Leuko 01:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay... I don't understand as I've seen many fansites linked on different wikipedia pages (which include info not found on the wikipedia page for the person), but I certainly respect the guidelines. Thank you.Justbreathe17 01:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I can understand your confusion. Certain editors don't seem to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a webdirectory, and add links to 20+ fan sites. Unfortunately, there are millions of articles on WP, so it is impossible to keep them all in-line with all the relevant policies/guidelines. So, thank you for your recent contributions, and if you see inappropriate external links to fan sites, please feel free to be bold, and remove them. Thanks! Leuko 01:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Speed delete TASI? Is this a sick joke???

Hi, I notice on User:HEL talk page that you put a speed deletion on TASI as a "blatant propaganda". Must I know why? That is a very fine page made in good faith by User:HEL, a very fine contributor (just check his contributions). I was thinking of creating a stub before he created the page. TASI is a VERY important Institute. Please, think twice before speedy deletions (instead, put an VfD tag (not speedy) on it). Cordially yours: Mdob | Talk

Thank you for your comments. Please consider that my placement of a speedy deletion tag was in good faith as well. The article as written when I placed the tag seemed like an advertisement for some non-notable summer camp, thus meeting the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. This is why references are so important to establish notability. Leuko 00:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh! Thanks! Good you clarified my misunderstanding of your actions! Sorry: I was hasty in misjuding you too. Thank you for your nice reply:D Mdob | Talk 19:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/e/u/User_talk%7ELeuko_Archive_October_2006_0f3f.html"