User talk:Lenoxus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Speak as you like! 
Lenoxus " * " 19:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC) (note to self: I'm up to "standing on the shoulders of giants".)
Contents |
[edit] Hipster
I dont have any original research. everything is completly referenced by more certifiable material then the original article.
[edit] Kwanzaa, Bloods
You sure he's talking about the gang there? Karenga invented Kwanzaa before the Bloods came into existance; and the term "Blood" was used in some circles as a synonym for Black. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Eh, no reason to feel stupid! And I didn't think it was disparaging Karenga; there are plenty of reasons to do so, but that wasn't one of them. Anyway, it looks like the section was deleted because of the lack of a verifiable source. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Redirect
I fixed the redirect for Lone gunman, there is no colon needed. Leebo86 18:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup tag
As the section onto which you attached this tag in Organic Chemistry is rather long it would be helpful if you could specify closer, which sentences you feel are 'just fragments' needing the cleanupLouisBB 21:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Honorius and Google
Hi, I just noticed your post over at Talk: Honorius (emperor). I've never noticed this behavior by Google before; simply put, it's bizarre. Do you suppose that since they promised "not to be evil" that thy're making up for it by being annoying? -- llywrch 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hi. Re: Categories of the article Zebra Waxbill
Hi. I was wondering perhaps the comments you have had made on my talk page regarding the article Zebra Waxbill, is rather too sarcastic? You mentioned I don't know whether to congratulate or spite you for this achievement, but I'll give a heads-up and say that I wouldn't count on all those categories staying there indefinitely. As far as I am concern, I don't wish to achieve anything. My only concern is to make the article better. I believe you probably would wish to have those categories deleted from the article. But does it really matter whether the article has the most number of categories or the least? I sincerely believe that categories are to help categorizing the articles accordingly and allow other users to have an overview on the articles which may be related to one another. It may be true that having too much categories may make the article messy. However, those categories still have their own usefulness. Luffy487 07:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well haha. Apology accepted. By the way, thanks for showing your interest in my effort categorizing the article. Right now I am figuring out how to use a bot to categorize articles. ^_^ Luffy487 07:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] You're welcome!
Hey there! Thanks for thanking me for answering your question at the Help desk. I don't remember which question it was, but at any rate, I'm glad I was able to help. :-) --Tkynerd 17:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Qxz
Qxz left the project and repeatedly blanked his/her talk page. I protected Qxz's talk page as an accommodating gesture. I don't know why Qxz left, it looks like a simple burnout. It's a damn shame though, Qxz was one of the best vandal fighters to ever contribute to Wikipedia. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Respect, see meta:Right to vanish. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Norwich City F.C. citations
Hey, thanks for your interest in the NCFC article. I've noticed you've added [citation needed] tags to two statements in the lead of the article, fair enough. However, if this information is cited in the main body of the article it is typically acceptable to not add citations to the lead. I think it's all about having an interesting, non-scientific opening to an article that lets you know what you're about to read. By all means, if there are concepts in the lead which aren't expanded upon in the article itself it'd be a problem, but I believe both cns you've added are explained adequately in the article. That's why I'll remove them. If you feel differently then please let me know on my talk page. All the best, The Rambling Man 22:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sandbox == good article???
Hi. You recently tagged WP:SANDBOX as a good article. Could you explain why? --Aarktica 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry if that was a violation of rules; I was just trying to figure out how the GA template works, and whether it could be used without the subcats; also, I was curious about the likelihood of vandals getting away with false tagging, based on whether it could be esily done (or would be caught), and figured the Sandbox was an acceptable place where absolutely nothing would be taken seriously (and that it would be reset automatically anyway). Was I naughty? Lenoxus " * " 21:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Naughty? Nope. Thanks for the info, though. --Aarktica 22:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notability
Ok, you can retag it if you like but I think it has to do with you not being British perhaps? Maybe 50 Pence is non notable in the US but notable in the UK? I will put something on the talk page to that effect... Happy Easter by the way.Andycjp 06:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your question about DYK
Hi Lenoxus. I've moved your question about deletion of DYK articles to Wikipedia talk:Did you know, which is the place for discussion of the general project of DYK (the Template Talk page is the place for nominations and discussion of them). I've also responded, although you might want to wait for someone with more experience to chime in as well before taking my answer as gospel. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lead section -> U.S. Code
I realize that you didn't create the redirect, just made note of it, but it's not at all obvious to me why Lead section should redirect to United States Code. Do you have any thoughts on whether it might make sense to change or delete the redirect? --Russ (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Trevor Loflin
Please note that the section of SAT to which the page on Trevor Loflin was merged has been deleted, and for good reason; the information on Trevor Loflin was entirely inappropriate in that article. I have nominated the article on Mr. Loflin for deletion a second time. Based on your participation either in the article on Trevor Loflin or in the previous afd, you may wish to participate in the article's present deletion discussion. Thanks. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 19:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- no problem, although i do happen to think that most of the pokemon articles are notable and encyclopedically useful ;). Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
