User talk:Lesnail

Welcome!

Hello, Lesnail, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Well, then. Happy editing to you too! LeSnail (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grazie! --Orange Mike | Talk 03:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. LeSnail (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we allowed to bug each other on talk pages on the basis of XfD votes? If so, there are a few things about the subject in the title that I'd like to be considered - for instance, isn't availability in English a defining characteristic slash significant factor among Japanese-only games? Especially from an international perspective? --Kizor _{is in a constant state of flux} 16:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow reply--I've been wikibreaking. You are welcome to bug me about XfD; I haven't seen an official policy about this but people do it all the time, and I certainly have to problem with it. I would agree with you that availability in English is defining, I think. I think games could be effectively categorized by language, just as movies are. However, the method by which the game becomes available in English, I don't think is defining. Whether the game is translated by fans, or translated by a company, or was originally released in English, doesn't seem to me the most significant feature of a game, and isn't defining IMO. LeSnail (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your edits to physical attractiveness. We have a topic of debate on the physical attractiveness talk page. Your opinion would be appreciated. Thanks.--Loodog (talk) 04:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found your tagging of this article as all to eager and swift, perhaps ignorant, as you have not allowed me to properly adjust and update the page. I'd like to request that you remove the tag. Thanks, Ryannus (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You have only one reliable reference, and all that it says is that the band existed. If you update the page now to demonstrate notability, then it won't be deleted. LeSnail (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already said, there has not been sufficient documentation posted online, therefore it is difficult for me to find 'reliable' references. I have posted an external reference to a site maintained by former band members and I have shown that the band are recognised as "Rock Legends" by the Derry Journal, Derry's leading media source. Ryannus (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

WP:V. If you can't find any significant information about this band anywhere, then they are not notable enough to warrant an article. LeSnail (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I only said that I could not find relevant information online. There are definitely old news articles and hard copies of information about the band. Ryannus (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can find them and they establish notability, that's great. Best of luck! LeSnail (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'd like to request permission to remove the tag, as non notability is not criteria for speedy deletion, and I will prove the notability. Ryannus (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually it is a criterion for speedy deletion. I strongly suggest that you do not remove the tag yourself. I am considering removing it and replacing it with a plain notability tag, but I think it would be better to leave it for a second opinion. I suggest you leave a note on the talk page saying that you can't find sources on the internet but that you will find them in hard copies later, and when an administrator plods through the articles for speedy deletion, they will decide what should be done with the page. LeSnail (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion."

I did assert notability. Anyway, the matter has been resolved. Thank you. Ryannus (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this site is not noteworthy? I want to spend my time improving WP, not explaining to deletionists such as yourself why topics are important.

It's just a matter of time before someone else recreates the entry and then all you would have accomplished was to slow down Wikipedia's growth. - sYndicate ^talk 21:31, 5 Janurary 2007 (UTC)

All your article said was that the website existed and was a sci-fi blog. It got deleted not because you didn't explain to me why it was important, but because the article didn't give anyone any information about why it was important. LeSnail (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My article was intended as a start. Within minutes you deleted the little bit of information that existed on this topic - what does that accomplish? Had I been given the opportunity I would have added more information. Instead, I will contribute somewhere where people make it easier to add information, not more difficult.

From your talk page it is clear that previous articles you so swiftly, unilaterally deleted, have reappeared. Why don't you find out for yourself why something is important, and add this information to the article, instead of just wiping it away with a justification that it's not perfect? - sYndicate ^talk 11:09, 6 Janurary 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't "swiftly, unilaterally delete" your article. In fact, I didn't delete it at all. It was deleted by
  deletion review. LeSnail (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I will do that, thank you. - sYndicate ^talk 06:57, 7 Janurary 2007 (UTC)

• OK, glad to hear it was all on the up and up. It looked pretty suspicious when an article you wrote was nominated for deletion and suddenly a new account appeared defending it. Sorry I misinterpreted. Best of luck with your editing! LeSnail (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I switched your db-bio to "db|Unreferenced Fictional Character" as it was about a non-real person, not a bio. Minor, and I agree with the DB. Just being a little more precise on the reason.

Cheers - Bagheera (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how notable these Ray Brown, Jr. albums are. Infact, I think there might be a poss COI with

• Yes, I'm guessing there is a COI, as
  WP:AFD? LeSnail (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

We should take the albums there. Notability purely derives from the fact that he is the adopted son of

talk) 15:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, I agree. One sec. LeSnail (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LeSnail (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not edited Wiki before but I saw Ray Brown Jr. perform live and I was very inspired. I wanted to enter him into wiki as I was surprised there was nothing about him other than a short "mention" in his parents’ profiles. If you feel mentioning his new album was not reliable, I understand as I only read it on his manager's website. Perhaps remove the listing about the duets if you are concerned about it being "publicity", but he is a historical figure. Mylyricalsoul —Preceding comment was added at 23:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking this so well! A lot of new editors get very upset when their first edits aren't received quite as well as they would like. I agree with you that Ray Brown Jr is a notable figure, and deserves an article. So, thank you for writing it. I don't think there is any problem with mentioning all the albums, including the upcoming one. However, the albums by themselves aren't worthy of articles in my opinion. They have attracted very little media attention, and don't seem to have any particularly notable characteristics. LeSnail (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Ray Brown, Jr. is a musican and his music isn't notable, should he deserve an article?

talk) 18:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Probably not, as his only other claim to notability is his parentage, which

WP:AFD, let me know, and I'll weigh in. If you are going to, you should probably do it soon, before people waste too much time working on it. LeSnail (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I assessed a bunch of them for quality and importance. Some of them, I left the importance blank, because I wasn't sure. I'll go take another look. Most of them probably should be "low". LeSnail (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Even if you aren't completely sure about the right importance, just making a reasonable guess is better than leaving it blank. It's a different system than other wikiprojects, because we don't need the talk page banners in order to make a list of math articles. — Carl (

CBM · talk) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Because you are a member of WikiProject Categories, your input is invited on some proposed changes to the design of the {{Category redirect}} template. Please feel free to view the proposals and comment on the template talk page. --Russ (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who created the Category and, since I'm new to all this, I made the mistake of using the abbreviation "CA" instead of spelling it out. I see it's been nominated for a change. Who does the change and how is it done? Since I made the mistake, can't I simply correct it? If so, how do I do so? Thanks for your help. CarverM (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Carver, renaming a category is (for good or bad) much more difficult than renaming an article. Basically, what will happen is that a new category will get made at the new name, the old category will be deleted, and all of the pages in the original category will be recategorized into the new one. Since deletion is involved, this process has to performed by an
  bot. So, you don't have to do anything, other than participate in the discussion, as I see you have already done. In a few days, the discussion will be closed, and then, within a day or so you should notice the category "magically" change name. When you create a new category, it is a good idea to look at what similar categories already exist (if any) and model yours off them. But don't worry about it too much--we've all created categories that haven't worked out, and there are a fair number of people who keep an eye on categorization, and make sure things get to where they ought to be eventually. Happy editing! LeSnail (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I meant for Category:Senior wranglers and Category:Second wranglers to be discussed together, but didn't make it clear that I was including Category:Second wranglers in the same discussion. If this makes you want to change anything you have said or add anything new, please do so. Sorry for the confusion and thanks for pointing this out to me. I have left notes explaining things at the discussion and with everyone who has already commented. LeSnail (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added to it. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the subject to AfD. He does assert some notability. I tried to write a half-decent article about him but it's hard because most of the sources are in Danish. Editorofthewiki (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you did the best with what you had available, but the article makes no claims of notability that I can see. If you disagree, you should contest the speedy deletion on the page itself. LeSnail (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Lesnail! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply

Hello. WikiProject Equine is discussing an article importance scale here. Your POV would be appreciated. --Una Smith (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a

Hello. The Teresa Wong article you contributed to is now up for deletion - unfairly I feel. Please check out its talk page and see what you think about it. Much appreciated. Cyclotron (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Leonard J. Russell, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard J. Russell. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Drawn Some (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Alice Wolf, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Wolf. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Vera T. Sós. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Zack Heart & Outback Zack

-- Dear Lesnail, re. "Category:Zack Heart Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category with only 1 article and little potential for expansion. LeSnail (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Outback Zack Category:Outback Zack - Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a fictional character. Contains only one article with little potential for expansion. LeSnail (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

We are new to Wikipedia and have done our best to follow the guidelines. We have been advised by people like yourself along the way and believed we had everything correct to this point. We do not understand why you have now made this negative nomination against the multinational celebrity Zack Heart/Outback Zack after we were just advised it was all fine. Please advise. Regards, Outback Zack Productions (Krystic1 (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

As you were advised by User:Bgwhite, the categories you created are not useful. This is no slight to Zack Heart/Outback Zack. Very few individual people have wikipedia categories devoted to them. For a category to be useful, there must be a significant number of articles on the subject. At the moment there is only one article on Zack Heart and one on Outback Zack, so there is no need of a category to keep track of these articles. LeSnail (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Individual animals

As a user who participated in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 12#Individual animals, you may be interested in a discussion related to this at Category talk:Individual animals#Recent Cfd moves. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jose maria vargas university

A tag has been placed on Jose maria vargas university, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

..for letting me know you have nominated Category:Companies with patent assets which I created for deletion Ottawahitech (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An award for you

Golden Wiki Award Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.0.87 (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Modest Barnstar
		You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.7.204 (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for adding a category to Yahoo! litigation. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People of Hawaiian/Native Hawaiian descent

Hello! You recently proposed to merge two categories from "xxx of Hawaiian descent" to "xxx of Native Hawaiian descent". I agree with both merges and have said so at the discussion. I was wondering why you didn't also nominate Category:Guam people of Hawaiian descent while you were at it? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that there is already a much larger category called "Native Hawaiian people". I am not sure what the distinction is between that category and this category, "People of Native Hawaiian descent", which is actually a subcategory of "Native Hawaiian people". All the people who are in the "Native Hawaiian people" category, or its subcategories such as "Native Hawaiian sportspeople," are also "People of Native Hawaiian descent" so I'm not sure what the point is of having a separate category for "People of Native Hawaiian descent." I guess what I am suggesting is a merge of the category "People of Native Hawaiian descent" into the category "Native Hawaiian people." What do you think? Where would be the appropriate place to discuss that idea? (Please answer here so we keep the discussion in one place.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with you. I cannot figure out a difference between "Native Hawaiian" and "of Native Hawaiian descent." It seems they are being used as synonyms. I would suggest taking this to

WP:CFD. It may be that there is a subtle distinction we are both missing, but if that is the case, I'm sure someone at CfD will tell us. If you propose the merge, there are also some renames that should be part of the same nomination. LeSnail (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

My inclination is to leave it alone for now. I came across an area where the distinction is meaningful, namely the distinction between Category:American military personnel of Native Hawaiian descent and Category:Hawaiian military personnel; the latter refers to people who served in the Hawaiian military pre-statehood. However I am taking a look at some of the individuals listed under Category:People of Native Hawaiian descent as there are often more appropriate categories for them to be listed under. --MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hawaiian military personnel is not necessarily for Native Hawaiians or people of Native Hawaiian descent, so I don't understand your point. Certainly categories related to the Kingdom of Hawaii should be separately maintained. I still don't see a distinction between "Native Hawaiian" and "of Native Hawaiian descent." LeSnail (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is shaky. As I looked at individuals in "People of Native Hawaiian descent," I changed some of them to "Native Hawaiian people" or an appropriate subcategory such as "Native Hawaiian musicians". I changed it if their Hawaiian-ness seemed important to their life, but I left them in the category "...of Hawaiian descent" if their descent seemed incidental to their career as an Oregon sportscaster or California actress. But I admit this is purely POV and guesswork on my part. If you want to propose the merge I will support it. However I notice that the categories "Native American people" and "People of Native American descent" both exist, and that case seems comparable. --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_13#Healthcare_by_subdivision_of_the_United_States

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_13#Healthcare_by_subdivision_of_the_United_States. KarlB (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Category:Sachin Pandit

Hello Lesnail. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Category:Sachin Pandit, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Category is not empty. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vegans by nationality

Category:Vegans by nationality, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italian vegans

Category:Italian vegans, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mexican vegans

Category:Mexican vegans, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Norwegian vegans

Category:Norwegian vegans, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Help on John R. Math Page

Hello Lesnail, thanks a lot for your help on John R. Math Page, thanks for the edit you made. There was also a comment on the references used. I have removed those references from private blog. Please I would love you to take a look at it and I hope it is acceptable now. Please I also need your suggestions on how to make it better as well. I hope the page stays alive. I would be expecting your feedback please. Many Thanks Daisybest (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016

: Voting now open!

Hello, Lesnail. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Lesnail. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Lesnail. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Writers who illustrated their own writing has been nominated for discussion

Category:Writers who illustrated their own writing, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Western Greenlandic" listed at Redirects for discussion

Western Greenlandic. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 9#Western Greenlandic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Sri Lankan mathematicians

A tag has been placed on

section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion

, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello Lesnail! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to

WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]