Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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...

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi there. Just thought you might be interested to know that you rolled back some edits in this article here [1] 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)

[2]
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You left a boilerplate warning on my talk page, warning me not to put "inappropriate external links" into articles. I ask, with all due respect, if you are smoking crack? How many, of the zero links I have added to that article, offended you? Uucp 03:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, VP left an automated message on the wrong user's page. I apologize for that, and I was going to remove the message from your talk page, but I've seen you've already done that. We all make mistakes, so please remember civility in your talk pages and edit summaries. Thanks! Leuko 22:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Leuko,

I regret that I did not fully read the wikipedia policies when I posted our names and then later tried to post our website. I agree that based on neutrality our link should be left off. I would like to still request that our names be added to the list of miniature artists alongside those of our peers.

Thank you for watching over the content and again please excuse my mistake.

Wes 02:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Wes Siegrist - webmaster for The Miniature Art Society of Florida and The Miniature Artists of America

ps. I hope I have submitted this request properly. I listed my email under my preferences and will be signing off for the evening.

Hi Wes. There is no need to submit a request to me, I do not own the page. :-) You are more than welcome to add the names yourself without the link. In any case, I've added them for you. My only concern with the whole list of artists is the lack of references to verify that these artists exist and are notable for inclusion into Wikipedia. However, I'm too tired to research this tonight. Maybe tomorrow. But if you are aware of these artists, it would be great if you could help out by adding links to independent reviews from reliable sources to the article. Thanks! Leuko 03:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Leuko,

Thanks so much for adding our names for us! I can check through the list of names sometime after Thanksgiving and verify that they are practicing miniaturists. FYI: There's currently between 500 and 1000 active miniaturists submitting to the various exhibitions. The Wikipedia list of artists could grow substantially.

I will add according to the submission guidelines specific references and citations that will provide references for some of the artists currently listed.

Should you need to check anything sooner here are two URLS that will help: MAA Membership Roster of Artists (The MAA is the only Miniature Art Honor Society in the World.) MASF Artist Members online MASF is the largest Society of contemporary miniature artists in the world. They are based in the Clearwater, FL area and annually host in regional museums the largest exhibition of contemporary miniature art in the world. It's possible for a WFM World Exhibition to be larger but they are only held every four years with the next one being in Hobart, Tasmania in 2008. I can also email you the specific URL or password for the MASF full membership roster if you require it for your research and confirmation.

By the way, since "finding" Wikipedia I've found it a great resource for research into historic miniature art and I know the contemporary miniature art movement is indebted to Wikipedia for the exposure and validation it provides.

Wes 13:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wes, thanks for the links and the offer of access to the membership roster, however I won't be needing it. While the membership roster will WP:V verify that the person is a practitioner of miniature art, it does not establish their notability for inclusion in Wikipedia - this would need to be independent newspaper articles/media reviews on notable websites of their work to meet those criterion. Generally, I find Google or another search engine works best for both purposes. Leuko 15:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Here you wrote "Perhaps we should entertain the notion that the nominator (Arbustoo) is associated with the school and wishes to remove what they consider negative press." Had you bothered to look at the article history you would have noticed I WAS THE ONE WHO NOTED IT WAS UNACCREDITED and likely to be a diploma mill. I remind you that WP:AGF is a policy. Also take a look at the List of diploma mills and view various articles and see what users constantly clean up and revert those articles. Arbusto 07:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I did look at the article history as well as your other contributions, and I know the comment I made was ludicrous. However, I wanted to make a point that it was no less ludicrous than one of your comments where you single out a new user for being exactly that. Anyone interested in the AfD can check the contributions of a user involved in an AfD to make sure that they are not a WP:SPA, there is no reason to add the comment that you did unless 1) you wanted to discredit the new user simply because s/he had an opinion which differed from yours or 2) you wanted to make an accusation that simply because they were agreeing with me, they must be a WP:SOCK. Either way, it is a personal attack against both the new user and myself, and a violation of WP:BITE. Leuko 15:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

New users generally aren't familiar with policies, including policies for inclusion and deletions. Whether the closing admin. considered that or not, I do not know. What I do know is that new user's voters generally aren't counted. Since you voted keep, please make sure the article passes WP:V and has some notablity. Perhaps consider finding a WP:RS that it is a med school. Arbusto 08:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a vote, it's a discussion.  :-) The number of people voting one way or another shouldn't matter, the closing admin should weigh the strengths of the arguments made. There is still no need to tag new users as such - I am sure the closing admin can do his/her homework if it is a more contentious issue. This was obviously not a WP:SPA who was only created to vote in the AfD, and s/he continues to make contributions to WP. As for the article itself, since it is an unaccredited school, the WP:RS IMED which shows it is not an accredited medical school, despite its claims on its website, is cited, therefore WP:V is passed. There are no WP:RS citing it is a medical school because 1) it does not appear to be recognized by anyone at this time, and 2) according to the administrator on the talk page, just started classes two months ago. Leuko 16:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any proof this place exists outside of cyberspace? Arbusto 18:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No, but what does it matter? 1) There are thousands of school articles on WP that only use online sources to prove/disprove their existence, and 2) if this place doesn't physically exist, then it could still be selling degrees online. Leuko 18:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No proof of notability, no proof it actually exists, and still we have a wikipedia article on it. Arbusto 19:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not notable according to your definition. Since there was no consensus reached at the AfD, that doesn't seem to be an overwhelming view. In any case, I am sure there are 1000's of articles that don't fit my definition of notability but yet they still exist on WP. Leuko 21:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Actually, why don't you reply on the article's talk page to get the input of more editors? Thanks. Leuko 19:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)" -- because you and i are in an 'edit war' over it. :D leuko, please leave the article as it was, it's benefitial to the people interested in it. thank you Darren palmer 21:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Even though I find these multi-threaded conversations confusing, please see response on your talk page. Leuko 21:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

sorry to confuse you! i'm pretty sure you know what i was talking about, especially since i quoted you. perhaps you are very busy with your deletion chores? regardless, you win, i hope you are happy.

Darren palmer 21:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I can remember what I said, but maybe confusing wasn't the right word - annoying is better since you have to constantly switch between two pages to follow a simple conversation. Also, some of the links that you are trying to add may be included if you make a convincing argument on the article's talk page, and other editors agree with you. Leuko 21:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Attention Please:

Leuko 03/09 6/November/2006 UTC Sedona Legend

In regard to your recent note (on Talk.) I take offense to your words "inappropriate links." The links I added are certainly not inappropriate, and I would wager you are not even familiar with what the content of the pages added were. Several of the links that you DO deem appropriate could certainly be in question. For instance a link you do approve of: Paul Richter TWA Legend, is a website I myself originally created. At the launch it was a companion to the other 2 websites I created in regard to Jack Frye and Walter Hamilton. I respect your decision in stating that I should not post numerous links- I was not aware of the guidelines that seem to state that additional information in regard to the page topic is not permitted? I assure you I was doing so because the article notates Jack Frye numerous times. The pages I linked are more info about Frye than you will find anywhere on the net. What I vehemently disagree with is that you also removed the page, Jack Frye TWA Legend. My websites have been created in direct interaction with Jack Frye's family, certainly not spam, or inappropriate origin. Please refer this case to a higher editor, I feel we need someone to be a intermediary in this matter. Wikipedia is a public forum, that is the way it is billed. It should not be a biased work, that caters to only select editors.

Thank you,

Sedona Legend

Please don't take offense - this is a standard template message that all editors (should) receive when their link contributions which are contrary to WP guidelines are removed. Please see Template:Spam. The reason that I removed the sites (and now the third one as well, among others), is that making links to websites that you own is not permitted under WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. This is stated as a possible reason in the message. There are no "higher editors" to refer this too - WP works by building a consensus of numerous editors with equal say in the matter. In order to build a consensus that links to your websites should be included despite the policy to the contrary, you can try: 1) Discussing the inclusion of the links on the article's talk page, 2) WP:3O, 3) WP:RFC, 4) WP:RFM, and lastly, WP:RFAR. See WP:DR for more information. 00:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Leuko:

Thank you for your response. I appreciate your candid explaination, and I appreciate you being fair and across the board in regard to "which" links are added. I am aware of Wikipedia Policy at this point and respect it.

Regards, Sedona Legend

Hi, I believe you voted to delete Aplus.Net. One week after deletion they recreated it as Aplus.net. They recently renamed it back to Aplus.Net and started linking it around inappropriately. I spotted it and speedied it, but they've contended it, and it's undergoing a second deletion review. Please could you take a look at the article and vote (one way or another)? Many thanks!WolfKeeper 17:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for the heads up. Leuko 00:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You are an administrator, i had some posts from previous archives, i need to check on those, also i need you to correct few things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.2.80 (talk • contribs) .

First of all, I am not an administrator. Second of all, I have no idea what you are talking about. Third of all, When editing on User Talk or Article Talk pages, please sign your name using four tildes ~~~~ when making your posts. I would also suggest that you consider getting an account for yourself. Leuko 00:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well buddy, you told me i can be blocked since i did something wrong, meaning you have the power, anyways, I am Gordon (and i am not giving last name), can you fix few things for me? But you want to be administrator? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.1.121 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, you can be blocked by an administrator, which I am not. In any case, I still have no idea what you are talking about. Please enlighten me and I will let you know if I can help you with your request. Leuko 22:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you sound like an administrator, i am in touch with a member on wiki right now, have few things changed, i simply want few things added, i was accused of doing wrong things which i never did, will let u know wheni find details. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.0.86 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for the compliment. :-) Since you are continuing to use a dynamic IP address, rather than getting an account, I can't figure out what article or what warnings you are talking about. Unless you want to fill me in on the details, this conversation is pointless. And if you want a few things changed, 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. 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 21:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Leuko! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 06:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Leuko 19:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like to talk about this edit.

I've already discussed the topic with Kungming2 at his talk page. Allow me to base on what I wrote to him.

According to WP:EL if there are many fansites for the topic covered by the article, then providing a link to one major fansite (and marking the link as such) may be appropriate. The problem is that no big sports club (at least no big European football/soccer club) has one major fansite - usually there is one per country. And so Poland has RealMadrid.pl, Hungary - realmadrid.hu, Spain - realmadridfans.org, Denmark - realmadrid.dk and so on. I agree that links to blogs (!!) are a bit too much, but since Wikipedia encourages users to add links to most significant fansites, the ones I've mentioned definitely deserve a link - each provides info unavailable because of different reasons at the official website and in different languages. Sir Wolf of Poland 18:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

True, a link to one major fansite is acceptable per WP:EL. However, with 20+ links to fansites, the external links section was starting to look like a web directory, which Wikipedia is not. Since this is the English Wikipedia, why not a link to the major English language fansite. The links of foreign language sites can be added to the WP articles in that language. Leuko 19:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree, that adding a link to - let's say - a Real Madrid Unofficial Blog is quite funny, but I still firmly believe that it is good to provide the readers with a link to a fansite - at least in order to give them a source for news which concern different speculation, but also e.g. interviews etc. And since the English Wikipedia (not just this one, but still particularly en.wiki) is often visited by people who are not native English speakers, it would be appropriate (at least IMO) to provide them with a few non-English links, of course to pages which deserve it. And even when we restrict it to English, well... there is one big fansite in Spanish (realmadridfans.org), but when it comes to English, one fansite is Danish (realmadrid.dk) and one is the English version of the Polish RealMadrid.pl (AFAIK the only bilingual Real Madrid fansite in the world and moreover the only one which has interviewed the players of Real Madrid). Sir Wolf of Poland 20:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, WP is not a web directory, and 20+ external links are not really necessary for an encyclopedia. Also, it appears that you are a staff member of the sites which you wish to add. Under WP guidelines, this is to be avoided, since it can be a conflict of interest. Leuko 00:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not logged in, sorry, but it's still me :). As I've said, I agree that the number of links should be limited to just a few, but still issues such as sports clubs, music bands and other similar ones are by themselves fan-oriented, so I consider adding links to their (i.e. the club's, band's or whatever) fansites as logical as perfectly in accord with the WP guidelines.

As far as my being an editor goes - it's true and I'm by no way trying to pretend that I'm not. However, the article on external links states: If your page is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let unbiased Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link - that's exactly what I'm doing right now, no? :) 153.19.9.12 13:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that adding dozens of external links to articles is not in accord with the WP:NOT policy, which states WP is not a web directory. It is an encyclopedia, and links to many fan sites does not seem to echo the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia. In any case, I suggest making these comments on the article's talk page (not my talk page), so a consensus of what different editors feel about the issue can be established, because neither you nor I are the ultimate authority on what belongs in the article. :-) Leuko 03:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)