User talk:Leuko

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Mifter (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Leuko (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for warning the vandal on my talk page about personal attacks! Dogposter 17:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Leuko (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So who's the vandal you or user: 209.6.238.201? If its him I'm going to request block; however, he does not seem to have many vandal edits ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 22:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's him/her... But unfortunately, I don't think enough to get a block - just a lot of annoying POV-pushing. Leuko (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Careful with using Huggle. They will take it away for using it in RVT wars. If it is not blatent vandalism, it is better to just leave it and let the editors of the article police it. Or do an Undue with an edit summary. Or even ask what their intentions are on thier talk page and request for them to leave an edit summary. It looks as if he isn't actua;;y causing straight out vandalism with his edits. Just a word of advice. Take care and continue the good fight. ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 22:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my bad I misread it and clicked to quickly. But after reading the "article," I found it to be more of a POV pushing essay, so I AfD'ed it. Thanks, Leuko (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to formally retract my earlier 'plating of your page. Please review the WP:PRESERVE policy, at any rate, as far as trying to crack the nut of what constitutes vandalism. While POVs can indeed be pushed by adding content, deleting content is rarely acceptable, all the more so when it is fully sourced. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the breach of etiquette, which was unintended. But it appears heavy-handed to delete this article before the discussion has settled the matter? And your comment on spam is really not a valid criticism. There are many additions which could be made to the article, but instead of deleting valid contributions, you might consider soliciting improvements to the entry instead? Do please reconsider your comments and position. Danke schoen. Doctorjanson (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article will not be deleted until the discussion has settled the matter at AfD. We will gather everyone's opinions and decide what to do: keep/improve or delete. Thanks, Leuko (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism for the article Battle of Long Tần. I didn't know how to revert so I had to manually undo. --TEX ^tc 01:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - a lot easier to do it automatically. :-) Leuko (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My edit on Serena Williams was not intended as vandalism. In fact, I do not remember what I wrote. It was in the heat of the moment, and I always give 200% effort in everything I do, whether it is tennis, or editing Wikipedia. Cheers, and best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.233.110 (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember either, so hopefully it was correct. :-) Leuko (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leuko! Sorry if this isn't where I'm supposed to reply to you, I'm new to this. I just had an edit of mine reverted that I posted on the 'Pole dance' page, and got a message from you asking me not to post "inappropriate" external links. My links pointed to the most popular and useful pole dance/fitness forums and help sites on the net (studioveena and polejunkies). I can see why you might think it was advertising or something, but I'm confused why 'wikipole.org' is an acceptable external link when these free instructional, educational and resourceful websites are not. Please let me know what made you decide that I deserved a warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asphyxiatedg (talk • contribs)

Hi, yes this is the appropriate page. A couple of reasons that your links were tagged as spam. 1) Adding the links is your first and only contribution. 2) They are commercial sites - the former requires registrations and the latter has a shop trying to sell stuff. 3) Worst of all, there was an affiliate link. All of these point to posting the links for personal gain, which is a violation of the external links policy and WP:SPAM. Leuko (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the reply. I'm not sure what 'affiliate link' means, and I have made many edits to wikipedia over the years but never registered til now (which I was forced to do because the computer I was using had a shared IP with a bad record it seemed). Oh well, I thought the links were useful and relevant, especially since the creator of wikipole (the acceptable external link) is a member of both those sites too.

The link to www.hennapage.com in the "external links" section is not spam and was permitted after considerable discussion with two other editors several years ago during an extensive rewrite of the henna entry, as you can see in the discussion section of the article. The site is primarily informational and contains links to articles, books and bibliographies on the subject, as well as articles written by the site owner who is a PhD candidate in geography and is writing her dissertation on the spread of henna usage and traditions in the West.49oxen (talk) 10:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed the talk page - first day with Huggle and it just looked like spam. (Though looking more thoroughly at the link, it is not). My apologies. Leuko (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem...Thank you. 49oxen (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Leuko (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to your statement at the discussion page which made it clear which version of this page you were referring to. This is because I have cleaned up the article a bit (given that it is going to take a week to delete) and was afraid that the new cleaned up version might seem to be less objectionable (though personally I don't think it does). Some other editor who I think has pushed this article has taken away that link I added on the grounds that I was engaging in an inappropriate editing of your words. You may wish to add back the link if you think that is appropriate, but if you think I acted wrongly then I apologise unreservedly. Regards--Hauskalainen (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't realized that the article changed so much. While I don't mind the adding of the link, i'll leave it alone, and just add my comments re: the new version. Thanks. --Leuko (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok i dont have to put its real in the hitclips article now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buck9998 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that should be self-explanatory since everything in WP must be verifiable. :-) Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 00:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I'm not sure why my OZ site link has been deleted. My site is no different than the link that is currently on the page for "http://www.thewizardofozonline.net/".

My OZ section is the most extensive site done about the film to date, including the Warner Bros. "official site" (which is more for DVD promotion). My site gives a complete history and information and photos, all for free. I'm certainly not trying to spam Wikipedia, nor am I trying to sell any merchandise. I'm merely providing the link to the site for people who want to get more complete information, photos, and links (including a link back here to Wikipedia!) about the film and the film's stars.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Scott B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozianscott (talk • contribs) 02:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ELNO and WP:LINKSPAM. Your additions violate a few policies, namely: It's your site that you are spamming across multiple articles in an attempt to promote it. Also, the inclusion of one spam link is not a reason to include another. But thanks for pointing it out, I've removed them as well. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 02:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I disagree with you. The link you provided mentions "a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." - which is what my site is. My site actually provides more information about the film than any of the other sites linked. Definitely check it out. I only added it to the pages of the principle players (Jack Haley, etc.) because I thought that it pertained to those actors as well as to this page about the film itself. My site doesn't make any money, I'm not "promoting" it anymore than IMDB, Allmovie, Box Office Mojo, Rotten Tomatoes, etc. are. And they ARE making money and selling things and promoting their sites. I still don't see the difference. Again, mine is much more comprehensive than the one or two page listings those sites have. You're not being fair about this at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozianscott (talk • contribs) 02:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry, inserting the same link into multiple articles is spamming. And you do have a paypal link for donations on your page, which does give an economic incentive to spam. That being said, if you feel that the addition of your link would benefit the encyclopedia project, suggest it's addition on the article's talk page. If a consensus of editors agreee, and are willing to overlook the violations of the above listed policies, then it will be added. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 02:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that. I didn't think putting the same link in articles on the same subject would be spamming. And honestly, I was doing that for information only, there was no economic incentive to my posting the links at all. I have a donation page, to help defray the cost of running the site, but believe me it's definitely NOT a money maker at all. Again, there's still not difference with the IMDB and other links, which are on almost all of the pages. At any rate, do I simply go to the article and find a "talk page"? Sorry, I'm not as versed in the Wikipedia format —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozianscott (talk • contribs) 02:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, go to the article, and on the top bar there is a talk tab. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 03:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Leuko, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Allan Pease - a page you tagged - because: was made spammy recently, check history, previous non-spam version exists. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. SoWhy 08:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is still full of unverified claims so tagged for 2 years... Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 16:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly it was I who made all the last insertions including I Ching external link and this latter because I am the translator of the first arabic edition of the I Ching. As for the all links I lately inserted add to my own activities wheather in literary or translation achievement, as I'm not only poet, I am also novelist, journalist and translator. So plz help in regaining my additions, thank u.Basharabdulah (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]