User talk:Leuko/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thanks. I was trying to be firm yet not totally bite-the-noob. --Orange Mike 15:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for writing it. Leuko 15:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I am simply a concerned wikipedian. Recently an article entitled Jakob Grimsrud was created, and I believe it should be deleted. Since you are a new page patroller, I thought I would tell you. Thanks. TRBUFF 00:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, I've tagged the page as an attack, and warned the user against making attack pages. Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a

New contributors are always welcome. Leuko

00:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Another article came to my attention. It is Plugeetawasha Tugeevavaivannamamatala. I believe it should be deleted immediately. Thank you.TRBUFF 02:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Someone deleted it. Thanks. TRBUFF 02:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, but just feel free to tag it for deletion using one of the

WP:CSD templates. I am not an admin, and that's all I can do too... Leuko

02:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Until such time, any description of the events is pure speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapratho (talk • contribs) 03:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The specific items of concern are the addition of:

• "While details of said attack were never satisfactorily investigated in the post 9/11 congressional hearings"
• "Serious questions remain why the New York City emergency control control center was placed in the twin towers, as they had been attacked previously in 1991, thus being high profile known targets. Above described chaotic communication situations were a direct result of this decission, as the permanent control center had been destroyed in the incident."

Unless you

Original Research), and are not allowed in Wikipedia, unless these statements have been previously published in a reliable source. Leuko

03:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you let me know your thoughts on the reference that I placed back. It's to a third-party (but not entirely unaffiliated) document. Not one prepared by the company. Aki Korhonen 03:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a 3rd party source -- it is prepared for the company, is copyrighted by the company, has the company's logo on it, is hosted on the company's website, and is placed on WP by an officer of the company. As it appears that the company seems to have had significant influence in the production of this document, I think it would be wise to use a more independent source for that claim. Leuko 04:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll remove it. However I recommend that you review the relationship of a CPA and a client. They have far more stringent requirements for independent statements than what you say.Aki Korhonen 04:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. At least from the outside, the document does appear to be produced by the company or one of its employees. Leuko 13:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Leuko, so you think that YouTube is NOT a social network website???? Ciao, Sinigagl 09:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, that was the consensus on the article's talk page. IMHO, photo sharing sites such as Flickr are not social networking sites either. Leuko 13:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi

My edit to online dating service has been removed. I assume it is because I had a link to my site romance and chat. Would the article stand if that link was absent

"Snb123 22:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)".

Yes, your edit was reverted because it primarily existed to promote links to your site. The addition of text is acceptable, as long as you

original research. Leuko

00:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

On your revert of the IP address, what is wrong with this citation? --D_arkF_alls ^talk 06:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is a promotional press release from the school. I was looking for something a bit more independent to verify the scope and cost of the project, however, the IP refused to discuss on the talk page, and just kept reverting. Leuko 14:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, just wondering how you get an Auto-biography on Brendons page? There are 3 of us that have cleared up the page. All of the information on there is correct. It has been sourced from various places on the net. Just confusing to us, when the WikiProject Australian motorsport have put alot of effort on it and it seems that your from New York in America and I just want to know why your concentrating on this? Are you familiar with Motorsport In Australia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Nail (talk • contribs) 09:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Mostly because the subject edited the page, as the tag says. The information in the article is not properly

WP:RS. Leuko

14:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

From the conversation I had with the subject, most of the stuff on there was in-correct. Should I put it back, and ask him to sue Wikipedia? --NigelPorter 04:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you should properly source what's on their now from

WP:NLT would be a good idea too. Leuko

06:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There’s an old saying, that people who act pretentious, just look small. Maybe one of should look in the mirror. But thanks for the advice.--NigelPorter 12:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I am glad the 4 reminders to remain

personal attacks have made an impression... Leuko

14:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If your a medical student, you better learn a bedside manner. Other wise you may be hated by all. Everything I say is a statement on actions and not an attack on you personally. You are quick to react and see the glass half empty, not half full. --NigelPorter 02:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop with the thinly veiled personal attacks. Unless you have something constructive to say that will benefit the Wikipedia project, please refrain from posting here. Thanks. Leuko 04:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Omniglass, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omniglass. Thank you.

I'm a new user of Wikipedia

I'm in charge of the website bahu.com for my society

Can I know why did you remove Bahu from the

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmaix (talk • contribs) 14:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I must have forgotten to leave the standard message on your talk page, my apologies, I will go do that now. But in short, I removed it because the site is

WP:WEB notability inclusion criteria, and the article will be speedily deleted shortly. Leuko

15:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Your VP bot undid a change I made to Physical change. My edit had be the removal of some experimentation, and was a legit edit. I have undone the undo. Ronstew 02:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wanted to revert this edit. My apologies, VP must have gotten your edit instead. Thanks for fixing it. Leuko 02:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. Ronstew 02:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Leuko,

I've left a message just now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents see "Mass deletion nominations for List of [Ethnic Group X] Americans". Please take a look there. I see all these nominations as problematic, although, as I said there, I can't blame you at all for nominating them and I see nothing against policy. Maybe my concerns are nothing, but I think admins there should consider halting the deletion discussions and forcing everyone interested to try to hash out a policy on these things, perhaps on the WP:What Wikipedia is not talk page. Noroton 00:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that such a mass of individual nominations are stupid, but that is what an admin wanted. Thanks for letting me know about the

WP:AN/I report, I'll go comment there. Leuko

00:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You made a Good call by moving them out of AfD. One discussion on policy and we'll be done one way or the other, and may we never need to discuss them individually again. DGG (talk)

There's a new thread related to this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Odd_AfD_closure.--Chaser - T 23:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Leuko 23:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your patience on this matter. Don't listen to just one admin. Don't throw out the bad with the good. We'll figure it out eventually. Bearian 01:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. It's just so frustrating when you see such important processes as

WP:DRV broken. Leuko

02:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know I added the {{

Wow, that's the first time that happened. Thanks for letting me know. Leuko 23:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Leuko,

I think your closing the deletion discussions and moving the discussion to a central spot was a great move. Did you want to keep the discussions going at List of Chinese Americans and List of Hungarian Americans? Those are the only two that I see are still open. I wouldn't have any objection to your reintroducing some of these if we find the discussion flags and no one participates, but I think it would be diplomatic right now to close those last two. Thanks for your efforts. I'm going to check on the AfD page. If you haven't left a note there on what you've just done, I will. Noroton 17:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for letting me know. I did indeed somehow inadvertently miss them, I will close them now. Leuko 17:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I got all of them now. What are your feelings regarding the AfD tags on the articles themselves? While it is false advertising, it does allow people to find the current discussion on the issue. Or are you aware of a more appropriate tag? Thanks, Leuko 17:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd keep them on. Let some admin, when they have time, take them off. For now, they provide a useful link to a link to the discussion. My fear now is that editors will rapidly lose interest in discussing the policy because there's no direct danger of their page being deleted, then we won't be able to get a change in policy either way and we're back where we started. I think the editors mentioned by Neil in his closing comments on the German list discussion could be asked to join the discussion. Noroton 18:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that there will be less interest in a global policy discussion, rather than deletion discussion, but hopefully a lot less histrionics and incivility as well... I think that editors on both sides of the debate that have commented on the previous AfD's (be they the German, Norwegian, Portuguese, etc) should be invited to join the discussion. However, it probably should be someone a little more neutral (i.e. not me), lest I be accused of attempting to destroy WP in one fell swoop again. Leuko 18:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. I can try to take that on tomorrow. Noroton 00:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Leuko 00:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it turns out I'm not going to have time to spend on this. I don't think it should be a problem for you to suggest that others participate. Just keep in mind

WP:CANVASS, which says you shouldn't ask just one side. If you ask people from both (or various) sides of the issue and either ask everybody or keep the requests balanced on the whole, you shouldn't have any problem. I don't think anyone would resent you for asking to give their opinions. Also, I would think about offering proposals in the discussion before it peters out. Offer them under a new section heading and see where it goes. Good luck. Noroton

19:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't have that much time either, so I won't be on WP much the next few days. Thanks for your suggestions, I will try and follow up as best as I can. Leuko 22:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Your bot removed redlinked names in both Street Magic and Bizarre Magic categories. Unfortunately, both 'categories' are fairly modern concepts and don't have much web presence yet. While "Sonny Holliday" might be argued as being one of many similar performers, the remainder, "Jim Cellini", "Tony Raven" (deceased) and "Tony 'Doc' Shiels" are well-known and respected figures in the field. They're certainly on a par with the names the bot spared. I guess stubs should be created for them? Kosmoshiva 14:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Web presence is never necessary for Wiki. Are there no print cites (magazine articles and the like)? If there are neither web nor print cites, notability is kinda hard to establish; mere word-of-mouth street cred is hard to document. --Orange Mike 16:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Orangemike, pretty much what I was going to say. It wasn't my bot, it was me... I removed the redlinks because they can't be

Referenced stubs would be welcome. Leuko

22:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

you are one because the way you act to accomplish your goals is very snooty. If you look at the french american article I heavily contributed so calling my edit vandalism is very arrogant of you and shows a lack of maturity. take care and I honestly and truly wish you the best. Abdelkweli 05:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You were not called a vandal. You were told not to remove Article for Deletion notices from articles while the discussion is under way. --Orange Mike 12:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Orangemike, I thought the note I left was rather clear. Leuko 13:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

i understand you had no arguments in calling me a vandal but then giving me the personal attack message is pretty small but moreover very funny. Good luck anway. Abdelkweli 01:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, removing an AfD notice of an article in AfD is vandalism... Leuko 21:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

When withdrawing AFD nominations, please remove the AFD notices from the corresponding articles. I have used rollback to remove a large number of AFD notices from articles that had not been edited since you added the notices (see [1], for example). While I believe that where articles have been subject to editing subsequent to your placement of AFD notices, such notices have generally been removed, that wasn't the case here; consequently, some of the articles whose AFD nominations you have withdrawn may still contain the AFD notices. John254 02:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, those notices were left up per consensus (of 2), as the AfD notices provided a link to another discussion regarding these lists as a whole, which may result in their eventual deletion (but not directly, since it is not an AfD). Leuko 19:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to place notices concerning the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans on the "List of (group) Americans" articles, I would suggest doing so in a form which links directly to the active discussion page, and is customized to the present situation, rather than stating that the articles are presently being considered for deletion at AFD when, in fact, they are not. For instance, the following code might be placed at the top of each article:

{{notice|The criteria for inclusion of articles comprised of lists of Americans identified with various ethnic groups are being considered at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans]]. Please join the discussion.}}

John254 01:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of doing something similar, but I was currently in the middle of a move, and didn't have time. Thanks though. Leuko 21:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your page is really cool. I'm just wondering, how do you get the "offline" thing? It's really cool, I want to get one too! :) Please post a message on my talk page. Victoria uni 02:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, replying at your talk. :-) Leuko 02:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Um... I got everything up to the point about 2 new pages at the Mizza script page (or whatever it's called)...for the status indicator... I don't understand what to do there, can you help me? Reply at my talk. Thanks! :) Victoria uni 04:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that. I got Misza's version, but how do you get your version to work? Where to I put your code? Thanks! (Reply @ my talk) Victoria uni 04:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I finally got your version (some of it by "stealing" off your page, sorry....)... but I noticed your "busy" meant patrolling, so I changed mine to homework. However, I cannot find a homework picture to put in. How can I put one in that works and could you find one for me? Thanks! :) (Reply @ my talk)

Victoria uni 05:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I represent the University of Health Sciences. The inclusion of the name of UHSA on the page of AUA is ilegal and not authorized by UHSA.

I demand the inmediate retrieval of this information from the AUA page on WIKIPEDIA. Our lawyers are currently handleling this issue with the regulatory agencies.

I expect your inmediate attention and action to this matter.

Thank you

Lyzette Roman (removed personal information)@uhsa.edu.ag —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyzettemarie (talk • contribs) 21:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think it is illegal? I am not aware of any laws preventing its inclusion. In regards to your legal threats, please see

WP:COI. As a new editor, please see Wikipedia:Five_pillars for an introduction on proper Wikiettiquite. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Leuko

22:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why have you remove a link to Flirtbox while Flirtomatic is still there? Flirtbox has more members then Flirtomatic and exists for a lot longer. In fact flirtomatic blatantly tried to copy Flirtbox several years after it has been launched! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toby78 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It was removed because the article was deleted under the

red link. Red links are not allowed in the list, only sites with Wikipedia article are. I've left a standard note on your talk page explaining this. Leuko

21:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I had only removed the line "which is on the disapproval list in Indiana, as well as many other states." I think it is unnecessary; so I linked it to the UHSA page. Did I do something wrong? DrGladwin 17:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this how you treat other editors? By reverting their edits and threatening them by banning? Why arn't you replying to me? DrGladwin 20:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Because I was off-line. I am not on-line 24/7. The removal of content supported by

WP:RS is generally considered vandalism. Leuko

17:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

But you reverted my edit within minutes. However, you take hours to reply? And you didn't answer me question: Why is UHSA's name appearing on AUA's Wikipage? Is it because someone threatened you with legal action? Or is it because you are biased against UHSA? DrGladwin 20:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep typing "unaccredited medical school.........disapproved by many U.S. states" in relation to UHSA? Do you get some type of senseless pleasure in doing so? DrGladwin 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it is accurate, supported by

WP:RS. Leuko

02:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but why are the facts "supported by

WP:RS", does it that mean you copy and paste your personal opinion on every Wiki page? I think not. DrGladwin

02:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not personal opinion, it is cited fact. Leuko 16:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, DrGladwin has asked me for assistance. I vaguely recall that I was on

American University of Antigua College of Medicine has any detail about UHA. If there is a substantial chance of confusing the two, then a dab at the top of both pages would be in order, and sufficient. Unless there is some other connection that I'm missing, besides the lack of solid licensing, this seems like sheer unfriendly overreaction. Ill repute shouldn't be contagious. - BanyanTree

22:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a dab link would be more useful, but the editing was surprisingly similar to

WP:COI edits threatening legal action from one of the school's representatives. Leuko

17:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that as well. There do appear to be many people outraged that you've pointed out credentialing problems. ;) Also, I'm not sure if that ref you've lost when you made the dab was supposed to stand for the entire paragraph. How does "For the similarly named and credentialed medical school, see

University of Health Sciences Antigua sound for compromise dab wording? If anyone is really interested in the details, they can always click through. Cheers, BanyanTree

00:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but it is actually not similarly credentialled - AUA is not banned in any US state, where USHA is... Yeah, I lost the ref because I was not sure on the

WP:MOS on using references in dab links. I figured the statement was well enough supported by the article. Leuko

02:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

AUA is banned in CA and NY and possibly more states. What do you have to say about that? DrGladwin 02:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have to say you are incorrect. On the contrary, AUA is approved in NY by the Dept of Education for the purposes of clinical rotations, as cited in the article. AUA is also not banned in CA as UHSA is. Leuko 16:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the page for Starblazer you'll see that Lanpaper vandalised it by just displaying a large pirate flag, which I've since reverted. He seems to be a constant vandal. By the way, when countering vandalism yourself, how do you generate the "reverted vandalism by user "xxxx" message. Douglasnicol 18:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the vandalism and letting me know. I've reported

Twinkle. If you need help with installing it, let me know. Leuko

18:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I did see the thread, but I thought that the accusations were so ridiculous that it didn't warrant my commenting on it. Leuko 18:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of it... MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Leuko, you should be made aware that a complain was made about you by DrGladwin and myself to the Admin's notice board. We assumed that you were an admin based on your threats to block us from editing. We have found out that you are not an admin. In order to keep you in the loop and be made fully aware that there is a complaint being made about you, you should head over and check it out [[2]]Bstone 18:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, it appears the message above this was the same. You can disregard this. Bstone 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be going out of his way to try to annoy you. You would do well to simply ignore it. Friday (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I am trying, but he keeps persisting... Leuko 19:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Still, I recommend just leaving him alone. If he wants to make himself look foolish, why should you spend time trying to stop him? Friday (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My computer crashed while I was working on the

My apologies, but any large scale deletion of multiple paragraphs is assumed to be blanking vandalism unless explained. Copy editing is fine, but such large deletions should be discussed on the talk page first. Leuko 02:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging articles does not help them, it merely defaces them. If you have time to be watching the page to make sure the tag stays up, maybe you have time to visit Talk:Horseland to address specific problems and maybe drum up a little research. I personally would love to hear your input, as I have much issue with the sourcing but so far have failed to drum up support among those active on the talk page. Milto LOL pia 20:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see

WP:OR. Leuko

02:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Tagging articles is unhelpful is you don't bother even mentioning anything on the talk page, as other editors can't read your mind. Why not express these issues on the talk, perhaps in a bit more detail? Well whatever you're going to do, please don't refer to my edits to the page as "vandalism"; it is extremely rude, and I'm sure you can tell from my other edits to the article that I am trying to improve it and, in my opinion, have enjoyed some success in that effort. Milto LOL pia 06:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

While the tags are pretty self-explanatory, I have added a note on the talk page. And blanking tags without addressing the issues raised is vandalism, as it does not benefit the project. Leuko 16:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, one or more pages that you have edited from the following list

Thanks for letting me know. Leuko 16:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In view of this AfD, you might want to read the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans to formulate an AfD#5 nomination for Lists of American Jews that may generate legitimate discussion. -- Jreferee t/c 22:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Continuing to template him is unwise. I recommend ignoring his warnings. Friday (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by references? I think that most of what you know comes from experience with playing the game. There is not instruction manual. ... Reply on my talk page. Thx. Victoria uni 05:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, replying on your talk. Leuko 05:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw your note. It doesn't really make sense, because there are no reliable sources. There is NOTHING you can due to prove that information other than playing the game yourself. There is no magazine, book, etc, that proves that. Victoria uni 04:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What can I do to get references/non-original research? I wrote a brochure with a guide to playing a long time ago.... but it was never publicized.... I don't think that would help though. Help.... Victoria uni 20:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know much about the game, or what has been written about it in

WP:RS. I guess Google would be a good place to start... Leuko

20:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I created User:Jreferee/Lists of Ethnic Americans as a way to locate List of <x> Americans articles and to see whether they have been listed at XfD. If the list is missing any potential List of <x> Americans articles, please feel free to add to it. -- Jreferee t/c 01:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a long list.... I really don't see how you could have missed any... Leuko 20:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia a lot and many external links are of non-notable blogs and forums. I don't think there is a rule against non-notable external links. As long as it is relevant it is all good. If there is a rule like that, let me know the criteria you use to determine whether an external link is notable or not. Please don’t revert anything based on speculations and lacking a solid reason. 76.31.110.124

Please see

WP:EL. Links to blogs and other non-notable links inserted primarily to drive visitors to a site all need to be deleted. Leuko

02:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in this: Stewart University New Scotland School of Medicine -DrGladwin 04:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know -- another unaccredited school puff-piece. Leuko 07:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

IMHO, the reverting of disruptive vandalism is not a violation of WP:3RR. I was reverting misuse of the weasel words template which another editor kept inserting despite not being able to justify it in an attempt to disrupt the article. Leuko 09:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please see "stubbornness" at Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not. That you're both discussing this issue on the talk page is commendable. That you're both stubbornly reverting as if a Wikipedia article can't sit for 24 hours in the "wrong version" not. I agree edit-warring is disruptive, and so here we are.— chaser - t 09:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

---

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.

AD, you also missed another editor engaged in the multi-day edit war: User:DMcMPO11AAUK. It is for that reason I requested page protection to enforce a cool-down period, rather than multiple blocks. Leuko 09:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the last five or six days, DMcMPO11AAUK only contributed constructively to the article, rather than made any reversions. Looking at the past few days, I see an edit war between you and Bstone, and that is why you are both blocked, following a breach today. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, DMCPO11AAUK has made reversions (Diffs [3][4] on this and numerous other articles. Leuko 09:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

But he hasn't been vehemently warring, and he hasn't violated the

3RR. I really only see two warriors in this conflict. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk

09:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet another revert: [5] Maybe he's skimming under the technical limit of

WP:3RR, but he is still edit-warring. Leuko

16:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware that you seem to be having a (minor) war over the Caribbean Medical University article. Please discuss things on the talk page before making any actions. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that User:DmcMPO11AAUK continues to edit-war without sanction. If you look at my edits, you'll note that 1) I am discussing changes on the talk page, and 2) I am not reverting. Editing yes, but not continuing to make the same edits for which there is no consensus as others are. Leuko 07:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop stalking me and removing everything I do . Do you think anybody cares about sources or references ? I wrote that stuff about Miami and Florida because I live in Miami , I know what I'm talking about . Why do you have to undo everything I do just because of sources ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilgunner94 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR are core policies which have the consensus of WP editors (so yes, they do care about the quality of information in WP), as described to you on your talk page. Inserting your personal opinion just because you happen to live there is not acceptable. Neither are the continued personal attacks and rude edit summaries, for which you have been blocked. Leuko

14:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

On the list of famous mentalists on the mentalism page, you removed some very well-known names in the field (eg The Piddingtons, Gary Kurtz, etc) who just don't yet happen to have wikipages, while retaining a newly submitted and (very likely) vanity inclusion from someone who did have a bluelink, ie Mysterion.--Kosmoshiva 12:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mysterion's entry does look like vanity, but at least it asserts some notability and includes some references. Without WP articles, it is impossible to tell if the non-wikilinked entries are notable or just vanity spam. Leuko 14:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mere notability in a list of the 'famous' just doesn't cut it for me. Seems like all googles for Mysterion the Mindreader produce self-promo materials, whereas a google on the Piddingtons produces loads of archival material. Gary Kurtz (the mentalist, not the producer) is a household name in Europe. If I had the time to make stubs for these guys I would; perhaps I will. In the meantime, how is one to distinguish between 'notable' and 'famous' when any manjack can build themselves a wikipage? I'm sure Mysterion's very accomplished and entertaining, but famous?--Kosmoshiva 20:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The distinction you seem to be making between genuinely famous and Wiki-notable is a false one. While technically any manjack (or womanjill) can build themselves a wikipage, we do try to keep the false "notables" out. If you feel an article is bogus, then please put it up as an article for deletion. Such is part of the Wikipedia process. --Orange Mike 13:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Kosmoshiva has a point though, we do not determine notability based on whether a person has a wiki article about them, Leuko seems to be suggesting that the assumption is that any person without a wiki article about them is de facto non notable. I'm not suggesting that the removed links are notable, rather that "has a wiki article" is not the right test to apply in this case. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how this web page http://www.fsmb.org/fcvs_physcvs.html supports this statement ECFMG certification is required for licensure in the US as you keep asserting in Caribbean Medical University, as I can find absolutely nothing on that web page to suggest that it is in any way a definitive statement of qualifications required for licensing of physicians in the US.

More specifically, I can prove categorically that ECFMG certification is NOT required for licensing of physicians in the US, so your statement is fundamentally wrong. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 21:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 44	29 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Florence Devouard interview
Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled	WikiWorld comic: "Human billboard"
News and notes: Treasurer search, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Agriculture
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the