User talk:LeaveSleaves

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following:

Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page.
Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end.
Please specify a descriptive subject or headline for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed.
Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply.

I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.

Archives

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Thank you

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 HA6*6ER?

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Your my hero

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

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

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)♠♣♥♦[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Part

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Eric Potts

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]