User talk:Leflyman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 My accusations of bad faith on Talk:New antisemitism 2 Thanks 3 Permission 4 AN/I. 5 Correction 6 Ghost hunting 7 List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts 7.1 My name 7.2 Teabing-Leigh → MantOliveS 8 Re: April foolishness 9 Re: Essjay controversy 10 Re: Vandalism count on my user page 11 Lost Popular Culture Section 12 Warning

[edit] My accusations of bad faith on Talk:New antisemitism

If I'm wrong about this (I mean the edits to the talk page that I believe clearly misrepresent what I said), then I really need to know about it. Both Jayjg and SlimVirgin refuse to discuss the issue. (My apologies if you're not interested in this.) —Ashley Y 21:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for reverting the attack on my user talk page. It's actually kind of funny that after my (not very happy) response to Jimbo's handling of the Essjay situation, I then get attacked by a troll for being a cultish follower of Jimbo! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Permission

Permission to use on Wikipedia is meaningless as far as we're concerned. If you can get the author to release the image under a free license then we can use the image. ed g2s • talk 22:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AN/I.

I've brought the Krune Incident back to AN/I. Like you, I want to see this matter resolved to avoid further disruption and damage in the future. Understand that I am not reporting you; I simply want to resolve the Krune Incident. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Unresolved:_Dr._Stephen_J._Krune_III. Acalamari 23:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

:So...you're saying that there's little point in bringing a month's old issue back up. If that's the case, why even bring it up? As I said, I'm not bothered by the fact you opposed me; that's a non-issue. Acalamari 23:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• 
  *Leflyman, I want to apologize to you over the entire thing; and that includes everything that happened in the old discussion. Per this edit, I hope the incident was resolved. I really hope that, in the future, we can work together over something as opposed to keep talking about Krune and AN/I. Acalamari 00:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry that you took my comments at your RfA as personal -- they were intended to point out a tendency towards over-reaction, which you may acknowledge can be problematic in an admin. I definitely see you an up-and-coming editor, who just needs a bit more seasoning and experience before aiming for adminship. Best wishes, --Leflyman^Talk 00:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I can assure you that I was not offended by anything you said on the RfA. After all, it's just an RfA. I just wanted to avoid getting into another Krune mess, that's all. I accept your apology, but I want to say that you were not the one in the wrong: I was. :) Acalamari 00:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correction

Hey - I corrected the dates for your archive 9 - hope you don't mind! Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sure it would. I just saw it and thought I may as well fix it! Will (aka Wimt) 16:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of correction... is it really necessary to include typos in information if they were in the original source? It might be the same, but surely it doesn't help anyone reading it on Wikipedia... I'm talking about SSX 3 Where I corrected some typos in Rider Bio information... and you REVERTED it! ... I'll see when I'm remaking the whole SSX Rider Bio list (which I plan to do over the next two weeks, easter holiday). Surely it's not policy to include typos for being faithful... would you include typos when quoting from a bad version of... the bible? Or something... At0m1Ca 14 07:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry about that :) Didn't look very automatic, so I thought it was someone being funny. Thanks for the notice, will avoid excitement from now on, hehe At0m1Ca 14 08:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ghost hunting

Hi Leflyman. Can you tag specific sections of the article, rather than use a blanket tag? It would help discourage paranormal advocates from removing appropriately sourced content, such as in the criticism section. Thanks. -- LuckyLouie 19:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify...My comments above are regarding this article: Ghost hunting. - LuckyLouie 19:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. You may want to copy your comments to the articles talk page as they may be helpful to other editors who wish to improve the article. - LuckyLouie 20:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for the reply. However I won't move a Users comment on my Talk page to an article Talk page, such actions can be too easily misinterpreted. -- LuckyLouie 20:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

This really isn't necessary. I invite you to settle down and take your concerns to the talk page. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 19:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Your first edit had a misleading edit summary. Your second was a revert back to the first edit with no explanation. The rest included adding an item without a citation and removing a item that did have a citation (while claiming it didn't). I promise I have nothing against your content changes in principle; I just have no idea what it is that you're trying to do. My first instinct was that you were just a common vandal, but then I saw your extensive edit history. If you would please post something on the talk page, I'm sure it can be sorted out. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 19:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

...so do you intend on taking any of your concerns to the article's talk page? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 20:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My name

Dear leftyman,

As per your suggestion, I have requested for a username change on the concerned page. Please continue to advise me accordingly. Teabing-Leigh 15:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teabing-Leigh → MantOliveS

• Current name: Teabing-Leigh (talk • contribs)
• Requested name: MantOliveS (change username)
• Reason: I am told, and I tend to agree as a lawyer, that my current name violates the Wikipedia username policy for not using names of famous fictional characters. There I request my name be changed from Teabing-Leigh only if it is held that my name does indeed violate the Wiki Username policy. Teabing-Leigh 15:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: April foolishness

Thanks for the minor entertainment on my user page. I've added your prank to the (more realistic) count. Maybe someday I'll get vandalised like the Wiki-stars. Best, --Leflyman^Talk 23:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You never know your luck in the big city!

 ;)

linca^linca 05:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Essjay controversy

Dispute resolution works, doesn't it? I thought it would actually do the opposite. --w^{L<speak·check>} 18:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Vandalism count on my user page

Haha, April Fools! Stupid really but, I had to do something besides this. Lame eh? -- Reaper X 22:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol what the hell? Well if Linca wasnt helping me with {{Extra tracklisting}} I would ask why he/she is watching my contribs. Geez...way to be discrete. -- Reaper X 22:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lost Popular Culture Section

Hello, I noticed you removed my addition to the Lost (TV) page. I typed this up for the talk page, and figured I'd paste it over here. I added in sentence to the section regarding the Lost RiffTrax. I thought it was an appropriate addition to the Popular Culture section, but it was removed and i was advised against "spamming". Can someone explain to me why this link does not fit in to this section or how to rephrase it so that it becomes appropriate? Mcgonigle 00:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

As per this ANI report and the evidence it gives, I am requesting you to not make personal attacks and incivil comments about other users - comment on content, not on contributor(s). Please respect all other Wikipedians. Further violation of these policies can lead to you being blocked from editing. Thanks, Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Replied to Duck's allegations at WP:ANI#Disruptive_comments--Leflyman^Talk 03:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Your response about QuackGuru's own behavior is OK, but "Tit for tat" is never an excuse, for established editors or otherwise. Your comments were insulting of QuackGuru and consequently unacceptable. And as you are an "established user," I suggest you pursue dispute resolution over QuackGuru's behavior, instead of retaliation. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 03:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My point of criticism was over this edit summary. This was an abuse of edit summaries as well as a borderline personal attack. I also don't know how justified you were in bringing QuackGuru's editing history into question on the article talk page. Your discussion of the possibility that QuackGuru may be a troll is largely OK, so long as you don't let accusations fly. Just be careful, that's all I'm trying to say. Cheers, Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 04:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)