User talk:LeaveSleaves/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

why remove formual 1 2009 race stats

how can it be premature?.dont vandalize —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.192.100 (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The first race is on 29 March. That's why it is premature. ^LeaveSleaves 12:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

silver

why removing silver prices comparison? well-verified, using free sources (see: http://www.kitconet.com/ free caharts for your website)

greetings: CsB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.206.213 (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The information you added was temporary and not exactly consistent with the subject of the article. ^LeaveSleaves 13:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, no prolem with your edits, for mine is (i admit) is beyond bounds of article, at least this way. hence, the article's this part is factually incorrect and misleadig. I can accept that 30 kg of silver THAT TIMES were more serious than now, but what the article says is simply unture. worth og 30 kg of silver is NOT exceptional as of today's evaluation; i could not buy the cheapest new car for that in Hungary today. I would request you, therefore, to ammend the article in this part yourself, and render a proper comparison, eg 1 kg of silver was equal to x horses, y kg of grains, z of full armour, k of land THERE and THEN. otherwise it constitutes an untrue myth, which wiki is against to.

greatings: balazs

arcunum9bajc@t-online.hu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.219.204 (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For removing the idiot vandal related content from my talk page. :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. ^LeaveSleaves 14:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

heya

stop reverying my edits they are constructive halo 3 _i_s_ rubbish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.12.134 (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

RM

He removed information with no reason which I remember being called vandalism. It had a backed up reference, what he removed, and I saw it as reliable. He didn't want to destroy the page. I saw it as removement (sorry) of good information. Sorry if you saw otherwise. You through me out of WP before, don't try it again! Chubbennaitor 19:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit you reverted did not remove any information. It simply rearranged the rows and added reference for the launch date. And what do you mean by "You through [sic] me out of WP before"? ^LeaveSleaves 19:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted someone removing the Ferrari launch date it had reliable reference, so I reverted what the guy had done. In March 2008 I was shouted at for an honest mistake which you and many others got involved in. I got a firing for my mistake so ended up with lots of hate etc. Chubbennaitor 20:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think you should have checked the new reference before reverting it. And I don't think there was a reference for date added earlier. In any case, consider using an ordinary revert instead of rollback for such cases, explaining why you are reverting the edit. As for the throwing out is concerned, I think you have misunderstood. I was never a part of any such "firing"; in fact this is my first one-to-one interaction with you. ^LeaveSleaves 20:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well maybe it was someone with something similar. Please don't fire over a lazy use of something simple. I wouldn't care if you just rereverted it. Chubbennaitor 22:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not firing away. I'm merely trying to point out a minor mistake which sometimes, as I've seen, can lead to removal of your rollback rights. It's good to be less lazy now than to face music later. You can take the advice or leave it. ^LeaveSleaves 03:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiLove!

DougsTech (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Speedy deletion of H*A*6*6*E*R?

Please do not move pages to nonsensical titles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to learn more about moving pages, please see the guidelines on this subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. ^LeaveSleaves 04:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I realise that this is probably just a test, but it still doesn't make any sense. Apterygial 04:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's just minor clerical error through Twinkle. ^LeaveSleaves 04:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

So, when are you asking for the mop? (Optional question from Apterygial). Apterygial 04:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh it's a long way to go. *grin* ^LeaveSleaves 04:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your my hero

Just thought you should know that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ageton (talk • contribs) 15:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. ^LeaveSleaves 15:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi

This is danspore i have my new user page set up if you look at it youll surely laugh.Danspore (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)♠♣♥♦

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Part

Got it, thanks for letting me know. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Professional Reviews

Zkauf1 here -- How is adding another professional review for an album like Department of Eagles In Ear Park spamming your site? You currently have the following reviews for the album:

Allmusic link The Phoenix link Lost At Sea (8.5/10) link The A.V. Club (B+) link Pitchfork (8.3/10) link The Observer link Rolling Stone link Mojo

Are those sites considered to be spamming Wikipedia as well? No album goes without a review by Rolling Stone or Pitchfork, and usually Allmusic. And even smaller blogs -- for example, Lost at Sea, here -- get their credit. Do they hold some kind of monopoly on acceptable professional reviews? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkauf1 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:ALBUM#Review sites to understand what sort of reviews are expected for album articles. Moreover please read WP:EL before adding external links to multiple articles. This is considered spamming. The links you are adding do not meet the necessary criteria for addition. ^LeaveSleaves 21:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sleaves -- Read. And all seems to back up my point, From WP:EL -- What should be linked - "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." Links to be considered - "For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews."

You still haven't answered my question. Splice Today (its own Wiki page I'm currently working on) is an online news and pop culture magazine owned and operated by Russ Smith, who founded the Baltimore and D.C. City Papers and the NY Free Press. Are we somehow less professional Pitchfork, Mojo, The A.V. Club, or any of the other sites with reviews you haven't deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkauf1 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

First, it appears that you have some sort of conflict of interest in terms of your edits. Now to answer your question, the websites FAQ indicates that "Anyone who can string more than two consecutive sentences together in a coherent fashion" can write for the site. How do you suggest that such articles be called "professional"? Further, the reason certain reviews are accepted to be professional is because they are written by individuals who are well respected in that area or the publication has long standing in terms of providing such well regarded reviews. ^LeaveSleaves 21:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Eric Potts

I have expanded the article. Care to add a section on his scriptwriting? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article has been kept, so there is no hurry for that. In any case, I provided some sources at the AfD. I think those can be helpful in expanding. The sources also include a personal interview. ^LeaveSleaves 04:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ferrari F60

Wait until the days events are over as we may be able to add more text (I think the F60 is having a long run later?) so that it can satisfy DYK. D.M.N. (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of statistical links

I have added links to Kei Nishikori's page - link to his recent matches list and his titles (at tennis.matchstat.com).

Now I understand I was not right about titles link - this information already exists at his page. But I'm little bit shocked about deletion of "recent matches" page link.

Firstly, it provides information which is not present at the wikipedia player's page. And, moreover, for example, page of Victor_Hănescu has links to steveghelper.com and resultsfromtennis.com.
These pages are of the same content, but shows information in less convenient manner and updated not as regular, as matchstat do. What is the reason these links are approved, while matchstat links treated as spam links. Thanks for your reply.

Matchstat (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The ATP page of the player provides all the necessary statistics for each player including data such as win-loss, record against particular player. As for the second link you added, it contains information only on Nishikori's titles. This information is already present in the article and once again at ATP site. The links to steveghelper.com are also not acceptable and I'd request you to remove them should you find them. ^LeaveSleaves 01:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

editing the sandpit

I don't see why editing the sandpit would get me blocked. I was told toedit here.144.82.240.178 (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You can do test edits at Wikipedia:Sandbox. ^LeaveSleaves 14:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

2008 Belgian Grand Prix

By the way, I've always regarded that GA as being as much your work as mine, so if you want to put a green circle on your userpage or whatever, go ahead. Apterygial 01:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's very generous of you! But I'm not exactly into putting green circles. Although I'd use my credit when I'd really need it, if you know what I mean. ^LeaveSleaves 01:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you be into bronze stars? ;) Apterygial 01:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah. I'm kinda into them. But as I recall, you already gave me one. ^LeaveSleaves 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no, not those bronze stars. These ones. Apterygial 02:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh ho, those ones. Well, I guess everybody's somewhat into them. But I don't think I'd put that up either. By the way, did you have a look at the background section at Singapore GP? ^LeaveSleaves 02:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Modesty, LeaveSleaves, from someone who labels their barnstar page "Peer recognition". I did look at it, there are a few grammatical problems that would need ironing out, but they can wait until you get it to the PR. I trust you are going to mention LH and FM's battle coming into the race, especially at Monza. I also don't think you can overstate how big it was that there was an F1 night race. It was huge. I'm also wondering whether you should mention what happened in Valencia with Ferrari's pit system, if not here then in post-race. Apterygial 02:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still debating what portion from previous races should be included. There'sMonza and also the result of Spa appeal. Also I'm not sure I understand why Valencia is relevant. ^LeaveSleaves 02:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, actually. I was thinking of the pit system. But in Valencia, Kimi left the pit box with a red light, while in Singapore it was a green one (did you see the Ferrari supervisor stick his foot out as the car went past!) Disregard that. You need to be able to give a picture of how close the Championship was. Probably don't really need to mention Spa as I did that with the Italian GP article. You should be able to find a good quote of Massa saying how disappointed he was in only finishing one position ahead of Hamilton when he qualified nine ahead. I'd also see if you mention Alonso's season to that point, if he just appears in the article when he starts winning the race you could have some context issues from reviewers. Apterygial 02:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Putting Alonso into championship race would be tough, but I'd try it. Personally, I feel it is a nice surprise to find him win the race unexpectedly after his poor qualifying result. Plus there would be some coverage in the reformatted lead anyway. ^LeaveSleaves 02:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with you, but reviewers may not. Apterygial 02:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd still try to fit it in. ^LeaveSleaves 02:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I find the thread above this one fairly amusing. Apterygial 01:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It was an interesting case of misinterpreted and misunderstood vandalism. Thankfully the user wasn't blocked. ^LeaveSleaves 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

One other thing: a quick stalk of your contributions shows you have at least a passing interest in Scrubs. If you ever need any help there give me a shout. Apterygial 03:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

AN discussion

Thanks very much for letting me know. I am really tired of this guy. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess with no replies to the discussion there is no chance of the issue being discussed. In any case, if you are sure about the trolling, I'd suggest you take the first step in the future. ^LeaveSleaves 17:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowgum Films

I think I made a rayon (not silk) purse out of a sow's ear. I invite coment. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is no change in my assessment of the article. Hence, I find it unnecessary to just comment there to say I disagree with you. I hope you understand. ^LeaveSleaves 02:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Renault R29

Stop deleting my Renault R29 page. The car launch is less than 48 hours from the time of this post and I would like to put the framework in place so others can add to the page once the car is launched.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Willit63 (talk • contribs)

There is no need to start the article or create framework. This things can be done once the car is launched. The article in its present state serves no purpose and contains no significant information. Creation of article prior to the launch can be considered crystalballery. ^LeaveSleaves 03:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Damages episodes

I'm afraid your 2 encyclopedic episode summaries got caught up in the removal of "TV Guide" type material from List of Damages episodes. I have restored them, minus the sentences that were posted before your edits on the air dates. If I have removed other free material, please feel free to restore it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. ^LeaveSleaves 14:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Illegal link

Hello. I posted a message on the administration policy board about an illegal link this morning and you were one of the two people who responded. You and the other poster seemed to wonder why I didn't just fix it. I have, six hours ago, posted a response to you both explaining the problem. So far, no one has responded. Would you please by kind enough to take a look and respond? You can also post your response on my talk page, if that is more convenient. Thanks for your help. 80.126.66.106 (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I am now quite confused. The message from Politizer was from a different, but related matter. I said on the admin noticeboard that the site falls under WP:ELNO. I don't understand your remark about consensus (there is quite a story about that, btw). The issue is: does the site fall under WP:ELNO? So far, no one has responded to that. And, as I said on the noticeboard, I cannot simply fix it myself (did you also look at the article history?) nor, after several months discussion is there any point in bringing this up on the talk page. For the record, I have brought this up on the talk page several times and not once has anyone addressed it (other than opponents of the link pointing out that it has never been addressed). Can we please get back to the original point? 80.126.66.106 (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your response. If the site matches WP:ELNO, why is there a link? As you correctly pointed out, my original point was that the site violates WP by misleading readers with factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. How does the site label make any difference in the content on the linked site? I hope it is now clear to you why I brought this issue to the noticeboard, but I cannot understand why a policy issue is being treated this way. Why is the link still there? 80.126.66.106 (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I feel there is miscommunication here. My understanding of WP:ELNO is that sites that meet that standard are not linked to. Isn't that what it says? If I understand correctly what you are saying, WP:ELNO only means you give a suggestion there is something different in that link. Do you disagree that the contents of the BJCP site mislead readers with factually inaccurate material? Do you know that much of the information on the BJCP site conflicts with what is written in Wikipedia? (I don't know where you are, but I live in Europe and this is the last message I will post tonight.) 80.126.66.106 (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your last message. I agree with your conclusion. In my original post on the noticeboard, I considered that the admins who would respond would have little or no experience with beer styles. This is why I posted the links to a statement by a BJCP official and also suggested that he could be contacted by email to confirm what I had written. Obviously, no one checked the link, no one read the message by the BJCP official and no one contacted him. For an organisation that demands and prides itself on verifiability, I find it strange and disappointing that this was not done. 80.126.66.106 (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

2009 Australian Open

Do you know why the 2009 Australian Open article is not having cohesive, updated day-by-day summaries. At the moment day 1 amounts to only 5 lines. Last year the event was kept up to date by yohaneuano4 but I saw that they were busy at the moment. Do you have any experience in writing them and if so is there a chance that you could contribute as we are trying to achieve featured content. I wrote summaries for several of the warm-up events (e.g. Doha) but am not confident about a tournament of this size. I have asked other editors about producing summaries on all the tennis main page articles for this year but very little is being done. Cheers. 03md (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm interested in improving the article. However, I'm currently planning a possible new structure of article that is different from the usual structure used in earlier tournaments. While Day-by-day updates are while the tournament is progressing, once it is over the article is overly long and suffers from other problems such as WP:SUMMARY and WP:LENGTH. I hope this new structure will be able to handle these problems and ease the matters when it comes to promoting the article to GA/FA. I hope I'd be able to create the skeleton for new structure soon enough and post it on the article's talk page. This is the primary reason I'm not updating the article. Because to develop day by day information now might be fruitless if new system in applied. ^LeaveSleaves 14:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have played a big part in creating basic articles for all Masters Series articles dating back to 1990 and will be happy to listen to your ideas. Will it be a structure that could be applied across non-Grand Slam tournaments because I tried to pursue the d-b-d approach but didn't receive much help? 03md (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the structure could be applied to any tennis tournament. The problem with d-b-d approach is that not many are interested in numerous first round matches or periodical departure of seeded players. Plus, I think there is need to shift the information more towards sub-articles that detail on individual portions (e.g. Men's Singles article detailing of seeds departure etc.). ^LeaveSleaves 15:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sebastien Bourdais

I'm not interested in hearing you try to justify removing Bourdais from the article when he is listed as a driver on Toro Rosso's website. Eightball (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

New article advice

Hey, I've recently started work on this page about a relatively low-level driver. Is there a useful template for these drivers, or some standard to follow regarding podiums/wins/poles in their various competitions? Also, is there any point in continuing and finishing that article, or is it not a useful one? There are two years in Formula Atlantic, and a season of Speedcar to add - I thought that as teammate to Jacques Villeneuve and a red link in many results-tables, he warrants an article. -- MetzMaboo (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you weren't clear about which article you are working on, so I'm going to assume that it's User:MetzMaboo/Christopher Zöchling. In terms of adding standard information, you can add the results table for years he participated in the Formula One or other racing events. An example can be seen at any of standard F1 driver article (see here). In terms of adding introductory infobox, you can refer to Category:Racecar driver infobox templates to see which one applies to him closely. I think {{Infobox racing driver}} or {{Infobox F1 driver}} should do the trick. Was there anything else you needed help with? ^LeaveSleaves 12:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Portal picture

Thanks for noticing! Nope. You are as free to nominate as anyone else. I want to emphasise that this isn't a competition, so there's no COI for you (or me, come to that). I just really wanted to rope you into making sure the chosen images have suitable free use information (I'm not great at that). Beyond that, any images you have would be very welcome (as would input into the portal colours). Apterygial 07:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:2008 Miami Masters

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:2008 Miami Masters, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:2008 Miami Masters has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:2008 Miami Masters, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)