User talk:Leroyinc

Welcome!

Hello, Leroyinc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

MBisanzBot (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Faith healing[edit]

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)[reply]

February 2008[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bob Saget[edit]

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)[reply]

Rush Limbaugh[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Britney Spears[edit]

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)[reply]

April 2008[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Leroyinc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is ridiculous. I chopped up the introduction to the Maddox article because it was inaccurate and verbose; a user frivolously dubbed my contributions "vandalism," so I sent him a strongly-worded message defending my edits, which was then removed by another user who said I was making personal attacks. I can accept this second complaint, but since I received the "warning" from the first user regarding vandalism, I haven't made any changes to the article under question. Why have I been blocked for vandalism, and persistent vandalism at that? Shouldn't you cite a few examples of vandalism before blocking somebody? What are you basing this on? Block me for personal attacks if you want, but regardless, users like these are getting in the way of actually accomplishing anything on Wikipedia. I am an innocent contributor who has been attacked by people who, for one thing, aren't even studying the content under question before they revert users' edits (that goes for the guy who blocked me), and for another, are breaking the flow of real progress by obsessing over petty little policies instead of focusing on the quality of the articles themselves.

Decline reason:

you did go over the line with the personal attack and you did remove sourced statements without explanation. It not an indef block or otherwise unreasonable, so I'm declining unblock request. — MBisanz ^talk 05:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Leroyinc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The personal attack is irrelevant; I was blocked for vandalism, which is defined as "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." This is an explicit definition, and it deserves explicit evidence (for example, if I had wrote "Maddox is a fat slob with a website," that would obviously meet the criteria for vandalism). If you would actually study the offending edits, regardless of whether you agree with them, you would see that I was not trying to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia; conversely, I was trying to improve the article under question, which is verbose, inaccurate, and sloppy. I realize the severity of this issue is not as great as the amount of effort I am putting in to resolve it; nevertheless, it annoys me that I am being blocked for something I am not guilty of. As I've said, if you want to block me for personal attacks, fine, but there is no evidence that I have committed vandalism as defined by Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

Personal attack is not irrelevant. A personal attack is considered vandalism, an addition made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. See also WP:NPA. — Yamla (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

John Lennon[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I see your point now.

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

Edit warring and 3RR[edit]

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)[reply]

Michael Jackson[edit]

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

Your recent edits[edit]

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)[reply]

Rapper[edit]

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)[reply]

Hatnotes[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Deleting sources[edit]

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)[reply]

6 not 5.[edit]

Please stop changing Eminem's sixth studio album to his fifth. It has been discussed, and it is his sixth. If this continues you may be reported for vandalizing. --J p G r B 00:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Infinite (album). If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. As User:JpGrB said above, this has been discussed recently, and there is consensus on the topic. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} 04:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add, remove, or change content "in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia," as Wikipedia defines vandalism. I am standing by what I think is right, and regardless of whether you agree with me, I am not guilty of vandalism and thus any charges of vandalism against me are invalid. You are supposed to assume good faith; even if this issue has been discussed, I disagree with the consensus and will continue to override it so long as I have the inclination to do so because I think it is the right thing.

Leroyinc (talk)

No offense, but your logic behind "this is not vandalism" fails miserably. As you just said, you know you are going against the consensus of the project and yet, you have done nothing to seek for new consensus. The fact that you are aware of such consensus means that you are actually deliberately editing against it, which makes it actually vandalism. So no, "assume good faith" has nothing to do here, especially when you have just been warned on the headline above. Get your facts straight. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} 05:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced material[edit]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Rush Limbaugh. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, your edits will be considered vandalism and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Hannity[edit]

Hello, Leroyinc. You have new messages at Floridianed's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for ignoring twice. What great kind of politeness. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 07:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

howard hughes[edit]

hello there. your observations regarding the accuracy of my edit are spot on. however, the phrase ...rose to fame... is horribly pedestrian and cliche and really needs copyediting. any suggestions? --emerson7 15:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot think of a different way to put it that would keep the "flow" of the sentence intact. I think the phrase "rose to fame," while it is very common, still gets the point across. If I or anybody else can think of a better way to put it that is still clear and succinct, that would be good, but for now I think it is best as it is.

Leroyinc (talk)

March 2009[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Relapse (album), you will be blocked from editing. You perfectly know what the consensus is. We've already discussed this too. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 22:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler[edit]

Is there any particular reason why genocide should not be described as a crime? It was certainly defined as such by the United Nations War Crimes Commission if 1948, albeit retrospectively. There is no apparent room for application of WP:NPOV here; even if it's not a crime in itself, which is now moot, it's certainly multiple murder, and hence multiple crime. Your thoughts welcome. --Rodhull andemu 22:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill O'Reilly[edit]

The lead is being discussed to ensure that it is a balanced and accurate description. I've reverted your changes, please discuss changes on the talk page. Fences and windows (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Sean Hannity. 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. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Hannity[edit]

You have removed the fact that Hannity is an author from his article. Given that the man has written 2 best sellers, calling him an author is clearly proper. Please stop removing pertinent, factual, sourced information. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newsboys[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Newsboys. 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. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on War on Terrorism. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles edits=[edit]

Please discuss your changes on the talk pages for the articles before making such bold changes. Ridernyc (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Hannity[edit]

Please explain this edit, where you add in a middle name for this person. It was stated later, by this very person, that this middle name was not his own. Where then did you get the idea that it was? Please cite your sources.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 22:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to The Marshall Mathers LP. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. --Petergriffin9901 (talk) 07:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits that you happen to disagree with are not vandalism: vandalism is when an editor changes an article with the intent of damaging its integrity, which is the opposite of what I did. I sincerely believe that it is foolish to consider "Infinite" a studio album and thus "The Slim Shady LP" Eminem's second album, "The Marshall Mathers LP" his third, etc. Eminem.com agrees with me.

July 2010[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Walt Disney, you may be blocked from editing. Your repeated vandalism of multiple articles is inconsistent with constructive editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010[edit]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Moon, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dawnseeker2000 01:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]