User talk:Lesfer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Troll warning Trolls and dicks, keep out. You are not welcome.
Archive
Archives
Jun 2005 - Dec 2005
Jan 2006 - Jun 2006
Jul 2006 - Dec 2006


Add your message below this box, at the bottom of the page.


Contents

[edit] Re: User

Hi. I looked into it. At this point, this could still be credited to newbie mistakes. The user has received a warning about tagging articles for deletion with unsupported reasons. Let's see how he will behave from now on. We can only consider him disruptive if he ignores warnings and continues to tag articles inappropriately. If necessary, a second warning may be given in the form of one of the "test" templates. Depending on his response and demeanor, we may consider an action to stop further disruption, if it were to be made clear that this was the user's intention all along. Redux 03:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You have been blocked from the DCDP

Different incarnations, are in fact, different. It does not matter if it is Jay Garrick compared to Barry Allen, or Kal-L to Kal-El. You ignored our conventions and called them "junk" and "corrupting" Very interesting double standard you have.Kokushishin 13:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Netkinetic has retired. Brian Boru is awesome 02:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mongul Gibbons.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mongul Gibbons.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mar-vell.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mar-vell.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on FIFA Club World Cup. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. Qwghlm 16:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robotman (comics)

I've been mulling over this for a week or so, and I'm still not sure quite how I feel about it, so I thought I'd just get it out here. I'm uncomfortable with the way that you've changed Robotman (Cliff Steele) to redirect to Robotman (comics). This is on two grounds. The first is that, as a main character in Doom Patrol - indeed the only character to have been in the series throughout - it strikes me as being not right that he doesn't have his own article while the other members do. My second objection is that putting the information for Cliff Steele and for the other Robotman character on the same page implies that there is a direct connection between the two - like there is between Jay Garrick and Barry Allen, or Hal Jordan and Kyle Rayner - when as far as I can see there is no direct connection or shared history whatsoever, they just happen to have the same name. This, I feel, makes having a single page for both of them hugely misleading, and I think they should have their own pages again.H. Carver 05:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that it is my opinion, which is why I tried to open a dialogue here instead of simply reverting or undoing your changes. As you advise, I will bring the matter to the attention of the ComicsProject and see what consensus arises. H. Carver 13:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Firestorm_raymond.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Firestorm_raymond.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Team of the 20th Century

Hmm; that's a quite fine question and one to which I can't readily find an answer. I haven't much of a clue as to whence I got the information as regards the pre-1982 World Soccer awards—I'm inclined to think I meant to reference another award but don't know which—but I'll look into it a bit and get back to you and edit the article directly. Thanks for catching my ostensible (and confusing) error! Cheers, Joe 00:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Having found no source at all for the pre-1982 awards, I removed them from the award enumeration. I remain altogether perplexed as to what in the world I might have thought, but you are, to be sure, quite right; thanks once more for the diligence. :) Joe 05:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liberty Belle

Hi there, Jc37! Any news about the matter? Cheers —Lesfer (t/c/@) 02:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In my (currently laughably nearly non-existant) spare time, I've done a bit of searching. Nothing yet, and perhaps we should assume good faith here. My concern (ignoring questions of accuracy) is that it just seems too "polished". It also could be a fork of some kind from some other encyclopedic web site. I suppose the best thing to do at this point is to note the edit in case further information turns up. I of course welcome any other opinions on this : ) - jc37 22:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: anon

Hi. I've left him a stern warning, since he had already stopped editing by the time I got here. If he does it again, I will do something about it. Thanks for the heads up. Redux 00:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JLA Box

Thanks for cleaning it up. I wasn't quite sure how. --CmdrClow 06:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Power Boy

I thought it was better because it showed a cover of him by himself, as opposed to a cropped panel. You can change it back if you want. --DrBat 23:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pele's goal count

Please do not revert Pele's number of goals for Santos to the lower number again. Why the number is given as 589 is very well explained within the article. If you do not agree with it you should start a discussion stating why and try to get a concensus. From my perspective the current view is that all domestic league appearances/goals should be counted. aLii 14:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Since when did "domestic" equal "national"? As far as I'm concerned anything regional comes within the scope of the term "domestic". If you want to be overly pedantic about it then the only "national league" that Pele ever played in was the Campeonato Brasileiro, in which he played 84 games, scoring 34 goals.
I direct you to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Pelé's infobox (goals) to make your argument. I started a discussion there over a week ago about this very matter. I would like to see evidence of more than just you backing your claim. aLii 14:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no. For the Torneio Rio-São Paulo you can easily tell from the name that it is a regional competition. There are plenty of Brazilian teams outside of those two areas. The Torneio Roberto Gomes Pedrosa was played partially as a league, but it certainly wasn't run along the lines of what we now understand to be national leagues. For example, have a look through the final tables on rsssf.com (see here). Anyway, none of this gets around the point that regional competitions are part of the domestic calendar. aLii 22:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)