User talk:Leroyinc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Faith healing

You recently (diff) added to the Faith healing article the sentence: "Beyond its essential meaning of the use of faith to heal, however, it is a very specific movement originating in Pentacostal/Charismatic Christiantiy." I am not overly familiar with the topic, but the relevant section and the Pentacostalism and Charismatism articles do not make it clear exactly what is the intended meaning. Is it that the movement initiated by Aimee Semple McPherson is often referred to as "the faith healing movement"? If so, I would like to rephrase to make this clearer, perhaps by saying "In addition to the practice of using faith to heal, faith healing may also refer specifically to the movement ..." If not, or if you can phrase it better, perhaps you would consider clarifying? We can also discuss on the article talk page if you would prefer. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 00:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Maddox (writer), without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. seicer | talk | contribs 22:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Just don't entirely blank an article as it can be construed as vandalism by bots. There isn't much information to work with really, but best of luck! seicer | talk | contribs 22:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Saget

I'm trying to figure out why you feel it necessary to cut up the intro of Bob Saget, which also breaks some ref tags, as seen here. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rush Limbaugh

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Rush Limbaugh. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Asher196 (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rush Limbaugh, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.Asher196 (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Britney Spears

Your change to the beginning sentence at Britney Spears has been reverted. We, the usual suspects at the article, spent a very long time going over the beginning sentence on the talk page a month back. If you want to discuss it, check there. Thanks. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 01:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Maddox (writer). Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User:Navnløs, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ≈ The Haunted Angel 01:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care about the situation with Maddox - all I noticed was you calling him a twat; I'll say this straight forward - personal attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia, at all. If you wish to discuss it with Nav, then do so calmly, without reverting to name-calling. ≈ The Haunted Angel 01:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 31h from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. seicer | talk | contribs 02:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(E.c.) Also endorsed for the above reasons. This redirect could have been mistaken as vandalism, but was probably made erroneously. Sandstein (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The history behind the article in question is one where the edits by Leroyinc were against consensus or factual statement, and were being constantly reverted -- leading up to page protections. seicer | talk | contribs 06:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone helping in the matter and I will now direct my comments to Leroyinc. You say you're not a vandal but then immediately go and vandalize my user page? Well thanks for proving that one. Second, I don't believe Maddox was a magazine columnist and that needs removal, but you changed other things that me and a few other users had worked hard to make and stop vandals from messing it up. Second country of origin (not racial heritage) is important on wikipedia. Duh. Look up any band or actor/artist. The first sentence is supposed to say where they are from. So you were wrong on a few points and were then completely incivil about it. That is why you were blocked. I hope you'll change your ways in the future. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I saw your comments on The Haunted Angel's talk page (which is where you should have put your comments to me, not on my user page). I wanted to correct a few things you said. I am not damaging wikipedia in any way (and The Haunted Angel knows this as well). I do not frivously run around wikipedia reverting "innocent" users' edits under the guise of vandalism or anything else. I do not and will not damage the community. I've stepped on people's toes to be sure (and may again) but I try to do the right thing on wikipedia. I didn't see your whole edit on Maddox, only that you had messed up the first sentence (which I had corrected and defended, along with other users, agains the persistent vandals of that page). The magazine columnist thing should not have been there, though, yes. If you want to talk to me (or other users) again, criticism is fine, but make sure it doesn't resort to personal insults. Comment on content. Thanks. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Maddox were fine this time. The only thing I'm not totally sure of is if Maddox's real name should come before his pen name, as his pen name is the one he is more known by and the article is also named after his pen name. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You never responded to me. It's not that I expect an apology or anything, but you did level some serious accusations against me when talking to The Haunted Angel. About how I was harming the community and vandalizing or something, etc.Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry for not responding sooner. I stand by my assertion that the original edits under question were not vandalism as you alleged; my only offense was the personal attack, for which I apologize. The reason that I said you were hurting the "community" is that you accused me of vandalism when in fact I had nothing but the best intentions. What's done is done, but I would appreciate it if, the next time you run across an edit you don't approve of, you simply revert the edit and, if necessary, contact the offending user with your suggestions: but don't accuse somebody of vandalism on the basis that you don't like their contributions. I'm sorry the whole thing got dragged out as it did.Leroyinc (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Lennon

Regarding this edit, not all musicians are singers; not all musicians are songwriters; and the word "musician" should remain because it follows the word "rock". Lennon also did artwork in addition to his music. All of this is in the article. Please read an article before making changes to the lead. Ward3001 (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting the reasoning behind my edits. I didn't say all musicians are singers; in effect, I said all singers are musicians, and so to add singer and songwriter in ADDITION to musician would be redundant. As for artist, that is a vague word and it, too, encompasses singers and songwriters. If Lennon were a prominent painter, then say he was a painter: but saying he was an "artist," in addition to a "musician," is still redundant. Leroyinc (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to explain again. The specific descriptors of "singer" and "songwriter" are necessary because not all musicians fall into those categories. The specific word "musician" is needed to follow the word "rock". He can't simply be described as a "rock". He was a "rock musician". As for artist, he drew pictures. He may not have been as known for that as he was his music, but he was known for it. And it is discussed in the article. So the word "artist" is appropriate. Ward3001 (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your point now.

Leroyinc (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring and 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Lennon. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ward3001 (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Jackson

Your redefinition here needs discussion on the Talk page, since it's already been negotiated by consensus. --Rodhullandemu 14:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Considering the above messages regarding John Lennon and Michael Jackson, would it be asking too much for you to read the articles and the talk pages for articles before making changes to the lead. It would save all of us a lot of trouble. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rapper

You're doing it again, here. Someone can be a rapper without actually writing the rap. I'm not sure what kind of logic you're using to come to these conclusions, but please try to be more careful in your deletion of descriptions in the lead of an article. Because this has been a repeated problem for you, please edit conservatively. It might be a good idea to discuss your deletions on talk pages before making them. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hatnotes

There are actual rules for formatting hatnotes. I can understand why, in this edit you might not have realized that editing without regard to those rules could produce unpredictable consequences. What baffles me is that you left the mess that you created without making any attempt to revert or fix it. You have to look at your edits after you make them to be sure they turn out the way you wanted them to. Even better, please consider using the preview button to look at your edit before it becomes permanent. Once again, it will save all of us a lot of trouble. Ward3001 (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Will you leave me alone? You are obsessed with me; it seems I get a message from you after every other edit I make. If you don't like something I do, CHANGE IT: but stop pestering me all the time. And for the record, I did see the repercussions of the edit under question and I tried to fix them: but after a while, and with little success, I had to move on to other things. Wikipedia is not the center of my life; I like to contribute to the project, but I do not care if I leave an article when it is not absolutely perfect. Please stop bugging me about every edit I make. Leroyinc (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please allow me to explain a very fundamental principle of Wikipedia, so fundamental that it is included in the Five Pillars of Wikipedia: "any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited." And it is not other editors' jobs to clean up your mistakes. I am not obsessed with you. I am, however, very concerned with Wikipedia being an encyclopedia of high quality. Because anyone can edit, there is no editorial control other than oversight by other editors. Some of your edits would not pass the quality standards of other encyclopedias. So your errors need to be explained to you. I have not made personal attacks on you; I have tried to help you understand things so that your editing skills will improve. If you don't care whether Wikipedia has high standards, perhaps you should reconsider why you are here. So to put it briefly (but respectfully), no I will not stop pointing out your errors. And I would not wish for anyone to stop pointing out mine. I will not repeatedly go through and fix your errors for you. But I will go to the trouble to point them out to you so that you can avoid them in the future. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting sources

Please explain why you deleted a legitimate source in this edit on Michael Medved, since you failed to give an edit summary. The source verified that he is conservative, which was a point of debate in the past, resulting in the citation. Did you think the Wikipedia policy of verification was unimportant? Ward3001 (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)