User talk:Leandrod

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Hello Leandro! Welcome to Wikipedia. It's nice to see somebody here who actually knows something about the relational model. :-) But I also have a critical remark. The term "relational database" is in practice used more loosely than it is defined by E.F. Codd or C.J. Date. That is perhaps unfortunate, but that doesn't make it less true. So that is what should be explained in the article and it should also be mentioned the databases that are not considered really relational by them but in general are called relational anyway. (Actually this is an issue that needs an NPOV approach since not everybody agrees on what "relational" exactly means.) Some of those were mentioned, but you removed them, and this is usually done in Wikipedia with the greatest circumspection. -- Jan Hidders 17:26 Sep 12, 2002 (UTC)


Sorry for the late reply.

Thanks for the compliments, but I really disagree on NPOV... I do think truth more important than balance.


Hi. It looks like you're doing good work on Brazil related articles! Note that I made the São Salvador da Bahia article you started a redirect to the larger existing article at Salvador, Brazil. I added some of your text to the "Salvador, Brazil" article, which I'm sure could use further improvements. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 15:53, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


You are welcome!


olhe leandro, acho que corência e verdade são importantes, o que elimino é porque não acho coerente, não é realista ou é apenas opinião. Você gosta muito de dar opiniões e é livre (eu gosto de dar opiniões nas talk pages, não nos artigos), uma enciclopedia não é um editorial de jornal. E, não ponho pontos de vista por me agradar, apenas desejo que conheçam melhor (sem os mitos) a lingua Portuguesa e as várias linguas que derivam dela e que é importante de quem fala essas línguas, sei disso muito bem. Fui eu quem pos praticamente tudo sobre os crioulos portugueses no mundo, até com falantes de crioulo falei, aprendi etc. Não quero ser arrogante, mas é a melhor fonte sobre Crioulos Portugueses e não quero que deixe de ser. Mas tudo isso tem base e quero que tudo o que seja inserido seja veridico para que as pessoas acreditem, o que você escreveu não vejo onde está a base. Apenas lhe pedi para colocar mais informação sobre o que escreveu. O Lanc-Patois será um crioulo Português mesmo? E esses crioulos do kilombo? Gostava de links a confirmar isso, mais nada. desculpe, mas continuo a achar que isso é pouco fiável. Quanto ao assunto do que se fala no Brasil: O Brasil merece mais respeito. Os próprios brasileiros (alguns) gostam de piorar a imagem que o país já tem no exterior, tal como isso do "descrioulizado" ou do que falam já ser uma língua, não ajuda em nada o Brasil. Quanto aos Franceses, eles acham, uma boa parte, que os das ex-colonias, não falam linguas correctas, falam todos crioulos, linguas "semi-barbaras" porque só eles sabem falar correctamente. Uma língua não tem dono, é de quem a fala. Se o Brasileiro fosse lingua, seria um crioulo, não seria uma língua como o Português, o Francês, etc. Mas o que se fala no Brasil está muito longe de ser um crioulo. Isto é opinião, agora em artigos há que se rever em factos! E, quanto a crioulos sei do que falo, posso não ser (socio)linguista, mas já uma linguísta Espanhola e outra portuguesa me disseram que estou na profissão errada, e não estou a ser arrogante.-Pedro 00:39, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


Sinto muito, mas coerência não vem ao caso. A única coerência que conta é a dos fatos.

Por favor escreva mais claramente, é difícil entender o que escreve sem parágrafos.

Aponte onde há opiniões. Relato opiniões, mas dou o que entendo serem os fatos.

Você não pediu mais informações, simplesmente removeu o que escrevi. Isso é desrespeito. Podia questionar, avisar que iria remover, até escrever por correio eletrônico, jamais simplesmente remover a menos que houvesse erro flagrante. Só porque você não conhece não quer dizer que exista ou que seja pouco fiável. Não sou a primeira pessoa a reclamar da sua arrogância em remover informações publicadas por outros.

O Lanc-Patois é uma mistura de Português, Francês e línguas indígenas. Posso verificar se qualifica-se como Crioulo, mas não será para já.

Quanto aos crioulos quilomba, são de conhecimento comum no Brasil, inclusive com reportagens de televisão etc. Posso procurar fontes em outra ocasião.

Agora essa vossa divagação sobre se o Português do Brasil é língua ou crioulo ou o quê é ridícula. Então só é língua o que vem da metrópole? Ora faça-me o favor! És arrogante, sim. O que você tem a dizer sobre a imagem do Brasil? Só diz-que-diz. Essa estória de descrioulizado não vem ao caso, e essas opiniões que você reproduz simplesmente são ignoradas por aqui.

Ora bolas.


Sorry for the late reply, but I usually check new additions from the bottom of the page, not the top. What is your disappointment regarding? Dysprosia 09:09, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


Your summary removal of Sacix.

I have not removed Sacix. I never touched the article. Check the edit history. Dysprosia 09:42, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I was just copyediting the article Brazilian Expeditionary Force. Do you know what was supposed to have happened at Collechio? I changed it to captured but perhaps it should be surrounded? Rmhermen 19:31, May 20, 2004 (UTC)


Desculpe ter escrito tudo de uma vez, é hábito e falta de tempo. Estou no emprego.

«Você não pediu mais informações, simplesmente removeu o que escrevi»

Isso é o que se faz normalmente! Eu não me ofendo quando retiram o que escrevi, simplesmente vejo se fica melhor, e a maioria das vezes penso que fica, sim. Gosto muito do rigor ciêntífico. Que, por acaso, é de interesse enciclopédico.

«Não sou a primeira pessoa a reclamar da sua arrogância em remover informações publicadas por outros.»

Está fora de contexto, reclamaram porque removi do Talk mensagens de um lusofóbico, e a opinião de gente com complexos, logo inválida. Quem me gritou, disse que deveria fazer isso no artigo e não em talks. Não removi mais nada, se bem que ache que certos talks estão enormes.

«O Lanc-Patois é uma mistura de Português, Francês e línguas indígenas. Posso verificar se qualifica-se como Crioulo, mas não será para já. Quanto aos crioulos quilomba, são de conhecimento comum no Brasil, inclusive com reportagens de televisão etc. Posso procurar fontes em outra ocasião.»

Isso é bom, gostava mesmo de saber. Apesar de não confiar muito no "rigor" jornalístico, parece credível.

«Agora essa vossa divagação sobre se o Português do Brasil é língua ou crioulo ou o quê é ridícula. Então só é língua o que vem da metrópole?»

Disse o contrário! Claro que não é crioulo. Não tem nada haver com crioulo, é totalmente diferente, são apenas sotaques diferentes, nada mais. Mas há gente na França que não gosta da ideia! E, metropole não existe mais. Leia bem "Uma língua não tem país!".

E; o que se fala no Brasil (em relação ao de Portugal) não chega nem perto da diferença entre os vários dialectos alemães.

Aqui, em Portugal, chamamos ao que vocês chamam de "Português do Brasil", chamamos de "sotaque brasileiro". Ou "brasileiro", não brasileiro como se fosse língua (que não é), mas como se fosse sotaque, tal como chamam ao que falo de nortenho e ao que outros falam de "alentejano", por ex.

"Essa estória de descrioulizado não vem ao caso, e essas opiniões que você reproduz simplesmente são ignoradas por aqui."

Disso já sei eu! O problema do Brasil é ignorar tudo o que interessa. Mas também não vem ao acaso.

Tenho ascêndencia brasileira e família brasileira, e gosto do Brasil, mas gostava que tivessem uma mentalidade mais aberta!

Você chega a tratar o Português do Brasil como se fosse uma língua! Você é que parece ter complexos em relação ao que fala, não eu. Apesar do que falo ser bem diferente do Português "padrão" não sou eu que digo que falo "português da China" ou "do Japão", como se fosse algo totalmente diferente.

«Ora bolas.» Não lhe quero enfurecer, tenha calma.

Abraço. --Pedro 16:46, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Data Management Wiki Committee[edit]

Thank you for your contribution to one, or more, articles that are now organized under Data management.

Because of your previous intrest, you are recieving an invitation to become a founding member of the Data Management Wiki Committee.

The members, of course, will form and solidify the purpose, rules, officers, etc. but my idea (to kick things off) is to establish a group of us who will take responsiblity to see that the ideas of Data management are promoted and well represented in Wikipedia articles.

If you are willing to join the committee, please go to Category_talk:Data_management and indicate your acceptance of this invitation by placing your three tilde characters in the list.

KeyStroke 01:09, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

Ae ligature[edit]

Hi, why did you change all those articles to use the "ae" ligature? I mean, what's the point? English hardly ever uses that ligature anymore, and certainly not in these instances. It's not a Latin letter either so those names and places were not originally spelled that way. I've changed them all back. Adam Bishop 06:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

SI units[edit]

I've noticed you've been changing the SI units in some articles, from "km", "kg" etc, to "Km", "Kg". Unfortunately, your changes are wrong -- the correct forms are the previous ones, which you changed. Please read the SI article to understand how SI units work, and then revert your changes (I've already reverted the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter article for you) -- Cabalamat 00:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are totally wrong on this. Go undo your damage. Gene Nygaard 20:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Leandrod, You just did an SI Units edit that was incorrect ([1]). Are you using a robotic tool for your edits? If so, please give it some more oversight. - Chairboy 18:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Likewise, please stop changing articles from using a normal time format - i.e. 5:23 am - to some "SI" format, i.e. 5h23m am. In normal usage, at least in America, xhxmm is taken as a duration, not a time. I appreciate many of your edits, but please don't alter time. Thanks. --Golbez 01:23, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Feijoada[edit]

Ola, vi que voce mudou a historia da feijoada recentemente. Confesso que nunca havia lido que a feijoada teria sido criada adptando o cassoulet com ingredientes regionais, embora isso seria bastante logico. Se voce pudesse fornecer algum tipo de referencia (na internet ou nao) de onde esta escrito "sem duvida" que esta e' a verdadeira origem da feijoada, agradeceria.--Vertigo200 16:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Vasco da Gama[edit]

An article that you've edited before (Vasco da Gama) is nominated for Article Improvement Drive. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 02:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

SQL and relational DBMS[edit]

I found that you are trying to move/split list/comparison of RDBMS to SQL DBMS. I'm not sure if it is good or not. I know SQL is just one of the implementation of RDBMS (or in some cases SQL is not relational because it violates some of the relational rules). But SQL implementation is the most well-known and practial implementation of RDBMS. So I don't see the benefit.

Also, SQL is used for not only RDBMS, but also ORDBMS. See also comparison of object-relational database management systems and list of object-relational database management systems. If you are moving, please take care of them as well (ORDBMS is RDBMS, but RDBMS is not necessary ORDBMS). If you are not sure how, I suggest reverting them for a moment. --minghong 15:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question: ORDBMS is RDBMS, but RDBMS is not necessary ORDBMS. You just move RDBMS to SQL DBMS and left ORDBMS. That's not good. And ORDBMS should NOT be merged into RDBMS. --minghong 00:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

SQL/relational[edit]

Hi, I reverted your changes on OODBMS as both the change and you edit summary didn't make a lot of sense to me. Could you explain it in some greater detail? --R.Koot 19:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that SQL is not equal to relations, realtions refers to a data model and SQL is a query language. However your search/replace changes are incorrect and on the verge of vandalism. I kindly request if you would stop for a moment and discuss your changes in some greater detail than 'SQL != relational'. --R.Koot 19:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Object-relational mapping is about Object-relational mapping, not Object-SQL mapping! --R.Koot 19:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
While you are probably are right on some deep ideological level, you introduce a lot of neologisms. Even if Object-relational mapping should be called Object-SQL mapping that's not how 99% of the world's populations does it and therefore Wikipedia shouldn't. Also I still consider your search/replace edits as vandalism. --R.Koot 20:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I you insist... --R.Koot 20:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I you want to start arbitration against me there is little I can do about it. --R.Koot 20:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
See WP:NOT, WP:NOR and WP:DR. --R.Koot 20:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Henry the Navigator[edit]

An article that you've edited before (Henry the Navigator) is nominated for Biography Collaboration of the Week. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 20:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Portuguese spelling reform[edit]

In the page on spelling reform, you wrote the following:

"All this is moot in Brazil, where apart from some enthusiasts the reform is being thoroughly ignored, as most people do not see any problem with the current orthography and many linguists argue it would enforce uniformity where Brazilian usage is actually more regular or reflects local pronunciation."

I have several problems with these statements. As far as I know, the 1990 spelling reform has not begun to be implemented yet, in any country. But, even if it had, you say that "apart from some enthusiasts the reform is being thoroughly ignored [in Brazil]". Have you done a survey to establish this proposition, or is it just your impression? If it's just a personal impression, it should not be on the page. "Many linguists argue it would enforce uniformity where Brazilian usage is actually more regular" What do you mean by 'enforce uniformity' and 'more regular'? And why should enforcing uniformity be a problem, anyway?

I look forward to your feedback.

Which form would such a survey take?
Something other than a personal impression would be a good start.
Short of something formal, scientific, the reform has been harshly criticized and then promptly forgotten here. It still haunts the Houses of the Congress, but barely merits a note now and then in the newspapers.
As I wrote, the reform isn't supposed to have come into effect yet, so it's not surprising that it's being "forgotten" and "barely merits a note". As for harsh criticism of the reform, there has been a lot of that in Portugal, too. Criticism of public policy is normal in democracies, and it does not mean that such measures will not be implemented.
More regular means that, according to our pronounciation, our spelling is nearly perfect, meaning we have relatively few exceptions and special cases, and it is fairly easy to pronounce a word just by reading it, without ever having to have heard it.
The phrase "more regular" implies a comparison between two things. What two things is your text supposed to be comparing?
This wouldn't be the case with the proposed reform [...]
Why is that? Please be specific.
[...] which would have the sole advantage of uniformising the language to accomodate Portuguese-speaking populations that have an actually quite different pronounciation and who are numerically much inferior.
How is the proposed reform an attempt to "accomodate Portuguese-speaking populations that have an actually quite different pronounciation and who are numerically much inferior"? Please be specific.
If we have a spelling problem, it is not one of adjusting to an wider community, but of accounting for our miriad dialects and accents.
That sounds like mere POV to me.

Obrigado[edit]

Acabo de revitir o erro que você fez no artigo sobre o George W. Bush, eu odeio-o! Eu tive que tocar seu artigo - merda! Nunca quero fazer algo assim uma outra vez. Porem, eu já sei que você somente fez um erro, e não estava tentando vandalisar nada. Tchau, senhor! Estava brincando também! Ainda tenho que melhorar meu português! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Você esta lá? εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Não, não vejo a minha página de discussões todo dia, nem você me disse qual o erro -- e por algum motivo, não consigo ver o diff que me aparece como index.php.
Tudo bem, apenas posso compreender o português, eu tenho que estudar mais! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Typography[edit]

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the following from the MoS: "There is currently no consensus whether typographic (“ ” ‘ ’) or typewriter (" ') quotation marks and apostrophe should be preferred." In general, where there is no consensus on something like this, why change articles that are internally consistent? No big deal to me, but it's sort of like where people keep flipping some articles back and forth between US and Commonwealth English: it's just as likely that the next person through will flip it the other way, so it doesn't necessarily lead to any progress. (I mention this because of your recent edits at László Tőkés.) -- Jmabel | Talk 23:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Note taken, thanks. I am now changing only where inconsistent, even if I think typewriter conventions obsolete.

--

Leandro GFC Dutra 21:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Métis Nation — Saskatchewan[edit]

I noticed your recent edits throughout Wikipedia changing "Métis Nation - Saskatchewan" to "Métis Nation — Saskatchewan". What are you using as a basis for these changes? Nowhere on the MNS website does it indicate they use an em dash in their title. --Kmsiever 14:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As I indicated in the comments to the edits, it is a simple typograhical change. The - is just a typewriter artifact which makes no sense as a phrase separator.

--

Leandro GFC Dutra 21:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

When you're discussing prose, not the name of a company or organisation. There are no phrases in Métis Nation - Saskatchewan any more than there is a phrase in your name or mine. Again, please indicate any source that shows the organisation uses an em dash in their name. --Kmsiever 23:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn’t matter. It matters it is a simple typographical issue, not a feature of the name itself. Revert it if you like, but it is just bad typographical practice.

--

Leandro GFC Dutra 16:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Leitão[edit]

What's with the "Leitão" on Morgellons? Why not "Leitao"? It's a persons proper name. She does not use the accent on her own web site [2], so what's it doing here? Herd of Swine 18:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki:pt[edit]

Lang-pt.gif

Olá Leandrod,

Eu reparei que está a contribuir em artigos relacionados com a lusofonia e gostaria de convidá-lo para participar na Wikipédia em português, actualmente temos mais de 135 mil artigos. Sua ajuda será muito bem vinda.

Se por acaso tiver algum problema ou dúvida deixe uma mensagem na minha página de discussão.

Continue com esse bom trabalho,

Rei-artur 22:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing Html codes[edit]

Some codes have been superceded by direct entry of Unicode such as the emdash you replaced in Bat bomb, but others such as the no-break-space have no direct equivalent that I am aware of. The no-break-space ( ) prevents line breaks in the middle of compound words or expressions. Thanks. --Blainster 00:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK the HTML ‘ ’ is the same as the Unicode ‘ ’.
--
Leandro GFC Dutra 06:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Preciso de sua ajuda[edit]

Oi, senhor. Acabo de traduzir o artigo do “Duque de Caxias” da Wikipédia portuguesa, mais eu vejo que temos um problema, pq o artigo foi copiado palavra por palavra de acordacidadao.hpg.ig.com.br. Então, houve uma violação dos direitos autorais na Wikipédia lusófona. Não creio que o artigo no inglês tenha o mesmo problema, devido que eu escrevi cada palavra com minhas próprias idéias e com uma forma diferente. Vc pode me ajudar! O português não é meu idioma materno, então, ainda cometo alguns erros – talvez vc possa buscar erros que eu cometesse no artigo que eu escrevi aqui, se quiser.

Vejo que há muitas violações do direitos autorais na pt.wp. Isto é um problema que os admins. lá têm que eliminar.

Espero que escrevesse tudo bem. Não se ria, ainda estou aprendindo o idioma! :-) NOVO-REI 04:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Simca do Brasil[edit]

Hi Leandro, thanks for your corrections to the Simca Vedette article. But rather than just change our hyphens to ugly dashes you could help us with your Portuguese and try to translate some content from [3] and [4] to help us extend the Vedette's history further, por favor :D Bravada, talk - 22:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Blockquote[edit]

Why did you remove (in Four Freedoms) a blockquote element (which, among other things, works correctly for voicebrowsers for the blind) and replace it with simple indents? Markup should generally deal with semantics, not presentation. (Also, blockquote typically has better presentation, because on most browsers it indents from both margins.) - Jmabel | Talk 18:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was under the impression that Wiki would do the right think, and that one should use consistently wiki markup. Do you have any pointers to the difference between wiki indents and blockquotes elements?
--
Leandro GFC Dutra 10:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima[edit]

Please note that the footnote comes after the punctuation, eg ".<ref> ... </ref>" and not ""<ref> ... </ref>." Sorry for the brevity, I'm needed elsewhere for 1/2 hour. Regards, Mr Stephen 14:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's at Wikipedia:Footnotes, and I should have said that in my first message. For what it's worth, I think it looks better before the punctuation too, but WP:MOS and all that ... Regards, Mr Stephen 15:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help[edit]

Thank you for your help in the Single-grain experiment article. It earned a DYK on October 12. I really appreciated it. Chris 00:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the markup on Sannyasi Rebellion. :-) --Antorjal 19:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please be cautious when moving articles[edit]

I don't know what you've been doing with Russo-Swedish War (1590-1595), but, following your unexplained move, there are multiple double redirects and the link from Livonian War has suddenly gone read. It's not the first time that I notice disruptive consequences of your moves. Please fix the problems. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I still fail to understand what you attempt to do. After your moves, a couple of links in Template:Russo-Swedish War Series has gone red. Where did my articles disappear? --Ghirla -трёп- 12:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Strange punctuation[edit]

Hmm, according to the Chicago Manual of Style, the en-dash is only used in place of the hyphen when one of the components of the compound is itself an open compound, while the hyphen is the correct mark in all other cases. In other words:

Japanese–North Korean War

but

  • Japanese-Korean War

Is there some other style guide you're following that uses en-dashes for all hyphenation? Kirill Lokshin 17:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok; that explains it. :-) Kirill Lokshin 17:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Treaties[edit]

Thanks for contributing to the List of treaties article. I would appreciate any other contributions you might have pertaining to treaties in general. If you want, please sign your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Treaties if you are interested in writing treaty articles, editing them, etc. If not, thanks anyway for your help. Later. Deucalionite 14:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther References[edit]

Dear Lean:

I appreciate your interest in the Luther page, but please stop merging notes using named that are not consecutive. This makes it very difficult for people who are working with the notes section directly to find the information. We've been over this on the Luther page and agreed to keep the notes system in compliance with Chicago Manual of Style and with usual practice in the discipline of history.

I also would appreciate having a discussion on the talk page before you make major changes to the article. I have dozens of hours of work in the notes and would like to know why that work is being undone before it happens. --CTSWyneken(talk) 14:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help[edit]

I just wanted to thank you for your help on the Underwood Canning Company. It earned a DYK yesterday. I greatly appreciated it. Chris 15:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Findhorn Ecovillage[edit]

I don't know why you went to the trouble of changing the <ref/>s to <ref name=>s on this page in cases where the citations ony appear once. I thought this was only needed for multiple citations. Can you enlighten me? Thanks. Ben MacDui 17:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC) (Pls reply here).

Change from en to em dashes[edit]

You changed spaced en dashes to dpaced em dashes in Ivan Argunov in instances where both would be correct. It is just a matter of which style you adopt, and Wikipedia has no adopted website wide policy so I believe that the policy is to let the current style be left alone as long as one article just uses one style of dashing, consistency within articles is important. I welcome discussion at Wikipedia:Manual of style (dashes) since discussion there about which styles of dashes Wikipedia should use is mostly dead. The dash policy also seems to be a bit out of date since it mentions html entities. Jeltz talk 12:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I note that you just did a lot of dash conversion on History of CP/CMS and related articles. Just for the record, Wikipedia:Manual of style (dashes) advises "editors are encouraged not to convert others' dash styles without good reason" and considers the 'spaced en dash', which had been used there consistently, as an acceptable dash style. Trevor Hanson 18:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

History of erotic depictions[edit]

One of your edits was lost when I reverted some vandalism; sorry, but it was the easiest thing to do. Just to let you know so you can redo it if you wish. Anchoress 11:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Influenza[edit]

Hi, Leandrod - my computer is slow, and your last two edits were made on top of vandalism that needed to be reverted - I can't tell if I reverted legit changes by you or not? If I did, I'm sorry, can you have a look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

A request for assistance[edit]

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 05:02 3 January 2007 (UTC).

War in Somalia (2006–present)[edit]

You've moved this article from War in Somalia (2006-present) to War in Somalia (2006–present) with a longer dash, due to typography. Please move it back, because the long dash makes problems in non-US-english Windows installations, e.g. article can't be locally stored w/o renaming, article can't be printed and the like. Thanks. --213.155.224.232 10:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There shouldn't be unicode characters in article names, since it are systems out in the wild which don't use unicode characters. For example you can store it on local HD but when you want to reload the local stored version into Firefox a message occurs, which translated into English means something like "action cannot be proceeded". So indeed, in article names only ascii characters are sure. --213.155.224.232 14:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I can't login here, since my German account name is in use in the English WP by another user and I am hanging around here rather seldom. ;-). I'll try to figure out something. -- I made some experiments today and I would think it's rather a bug within windows itself and rather with the mdash itself, not with unicode, since there's a problem with it even when I use ASCII code 150. Interestingly enough: I tried this also at the very old machine which stands for some reason in a corner in our server room (but don't ask me about that stuff, I have no clue how it works!), on which is still installed some WfW 3.11 -- on that machine I even can't rename or delete files with ASCII-150 in its name though it's possible to create them. Renaming or deleting is only possible using pure DOS and using the wildcarts * or ? Now I am not sure if this is a general bug of some localized versions of Windows or only in the Czech version I am using. Maybe it isn't a reported bug and I am not really sure if it's a bug which can be reproduced. -- I don't know if it's a general policy of WP. I only complain because of own problems. I'll try to find out how it is handled elsewhere. -- Thanks for caring and answering, anyway. You can answer here, I'll check this page. --213.155.224.232 19:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know about US-en keyboards, but at least the Eastern europe keyboards have no possibility to enter the m-dash without ALT+0150. --213.155.224.232 19:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile I found the following which should clearify it: At WP:MOSDASH is mentioned at the mentioned: Hyphens and dashes are generally rather avoided in page names (e.g., year of birth and death are generally not used in a page name to disambiguate two people with the same name). (...)If hyphens and dashes are needed to write a page name correctly (e.g., Piano-Rag-Music, Jack-in-the-box, Nineteen Eighty-Four), prefer simple hyphens, and avoid hair spaces, even in the odd case of a range forming part of the title, e.g., History of the Soviet Union (1985-1991). --213.155.224.232 20:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly found out the reason. When you save a HTML page by default most browsers use the title tagged name of the page. Windows or even Windows NT however doesn't save the dashes as Unicode characters but as ASCII-150 (for the m-dash). When now loading the file into IE or Firefox the file name is considered an URL to the local HD, but within URLs only lower case characters are allowed. As a result opening it fails. I am not aware if the problem occurs in Latin-1 based languages as well, but at least in every localised Windows/NT version which primarly uses Latin-2 character sets. It's basically a kind of inconsistency between ASCII and ANSI. --213.155.224.232 09:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Alain Prost[edit]

Can I suggest that using headings for individual years on the Alain Prost article is making the table of contents very long? I think that was the reason we originally did it the way it was. I'm not going to revert any more of your changes to them (sorry - I'd already done the early 1980s before I realised you were a serious editor!), but it's something to think about. Cheers for the tidying up work you're doing. 4u1e 00:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Regulamentul Organic[edit]

Hi. Can you please explain what happened with note 109 in that text? I would also like to point out that you are making further referencing of the text incomparably harder and harder to follow or correct. Dahn 14:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Leandrod, I repeat: your version currently features a note with no content (it keeps moving as you are editing, but it is somewhere in the low 100s). Can you please check what you have lost in the process? Dahn 14:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Obrigado. Dahn 14:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Biblical Magi[edit]

Your version currently features some notes with no content (it keeps moving as you are editing in 6 January 2007). Can you please check what you have lost in the process? Dietmar 17:20, 10 February 2007

Iranian revolution[edit]

Hello, I Thank you for your attempt but it couses some problems.--Sa.vakilian 07:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Coastel Offshore Cellular[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Coastel Offshore Cellular, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Agent 86 23:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I "prodded" the article because I do not think the topic meets notability criteria; in particular, WP:CORP, the guideline outlining the criteria for companies. If this article is more than spam or advertising for the company, please expand it to include the basis for which it is notable. Otherwise, I will probably nominate it for deletion at Articles for Deletion. Agent 86 00:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

American School POV[edit]

Just wondering your thoughts on placing POV on the American School (economics) page? --Northmeister 00:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Per your response...Thank you. If you wish to rework the article or work with me to do so; in making it detached and straight-forward along with criticism from other School's of economics. I am open to that. Let me know. I will be around for a short time only. I've noticed some of your work thus far and approve. --Northmeister 01:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Combined refs[edit]

Leandrod, I appreciate all your good-faith help, but you are undoing combined-reference style, which observes a CMS format precisely. The result is now double, treble etc. ref tags which were deliberately deliberately deliberately avoided and which have spoiled the elegant appearance of the text. Anyway, I won't change them back: it will take too long. But the notes no longer enrich each other in the way intended: some of the combinations were very subtle. Surely you couldn't have thought such a style was an accident. (My reference for this noting system is Chicago 15.12: "The use of more than one note reference at a single text location (such as 5,6) should be rigorously avoided. Instead the notes referred to should be combined into a single note.") qp10qp 20:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did consolidate; that was the point of that citation style. I would have one tag for, say, four connected notes. I may unpick some of your restructuring in future, but it's too late to just revert because there's a lot of editing going on there today. As far as CMS being designed for print is concerned, did you know that it is one of the styles recommended by our MoS? I actually think it's a more flexible style than our "ref name =", citation templates, and such, which are hard to combine with other references. qp10qp 21:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I just wanted to express my appreciation for your work on Data sharing. Your contributions make it look and read much better! RonCram 20:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting ref change on Cursed Soldiers[edit]

My apologies, but see my edit summary.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for help on the William Stacy article[edit]

Thank you very much for your recent edits. I am new to Wikipedia, and I appreciate. Regards, ColWilliam 01:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikisource[edit]

Please be careful about breaking Wikisource references as you did here, in an otherwise much needed copyedit. Cheers, Savidan 21:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Transcendental idealism chart[edit]

Immanuel Kant - transcendental idealism chart PL.svg

I noticed you're the active author of the article about Immanuel Kant in English Wikipedia. I'm the main author of the Polish version of that article. I prepared nice chart illustrating arising of phenomena. Now I'd like to translate it into English and put it on Wikimedia and English Wikipedia. It's a pity my knowledge of English language is mediocre. So I'm not sure of English translations of four Kant's concepts.

I ask you for help. If you could strengthen me in my translations or correct them, I'll be very grateful. These concepts are:

  • What creates some ideas, for example of God, soul etc. (my translation: “theoretical reason”)
  • What use time and space to create experience (my translation: “senses”)
  • What uses categories to create concepts (my translation: “sense” or “reason” — I'm not sure which one is more reliable)
  • What uses practical reason to create some ideas, for example the idea of categorical imperative (my translation: “postulates”)

Use my Polish home page to answer, please.

w1k0* 16:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

hiss impatience[edit]

I was in the middle of edits and you certainly did *not* restore the "last known good" version prior to my edits but rather renewed the mangled idea that what is currently ref 2 refers to scholarly opinion. Did you read the article at all? By all means have an opinion but let's try to at least make the cited articles and the words match, no? TMLutas 17:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't delete blank lines[edit]

Hello, deleting the blank lines after sections headings makes it harder for other editors to do their work. Please don't do it. Sincerely, Opus33 15:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Student Affairs[edit]

Hi! I noticed you have contributed greatly to some education-related articles and I was wondering if you'd like to join a WikiProject for Student Affairs that I'm trying to start. I tried this a few months ago but there was no interest, so now I'm trying to contact people directly that may have an interest. Let me know if you'd want to join such a WP so I can submit a request. Thanks! --Noetic Sage 23:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Pidgin[edit]

Hi. I was just wondering why you had changed all the dashes in the Pidgin (software) article? It seemed a bit unnecessary to me. ~~ [Jam][talk] 07:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide editing[edit]

Sorry I undid some of your changes to the article; the quote template did not display at all correctly, so I reverted it quickly so incoming readers would have an easier time reading it. I apologize for undoing some of your other edits by association, I was just trying to act quickly. -Oreo Priest 21:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It turns out the syntax error was due to the space between the | and the body of the quote as in: {{quote | BODY... as opposed to {{quote |BODY.... I fixed the formatting without reverting your other edits this time, but I'm puzzled that it did display correctly for you; I've never seen any exception to incorrect display when a line (or argument in a template) begins with a space. -Oreo Priest 22:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Counter-insurgency[edit]

You're awesome. Perspicacite 03:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Re this edit: [5] -- I agree with you that the form 1900s is to be preferred to 1900's, but the title of the drawing itself uses the latter, and that title was used verbatim. Should it be changed to the correct form? It's a trivial point; I'm just wondering how such matters should be handled. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion farther up on this page notes that combined referencing is an acceptable format on Wikipedia as well as in print media. I chose that format because it goes well with a footnote/source method where both on-line and print media are sourced. I believe it presents a better appearance, and also allows for discussion of an online source within a single footnote (not yet present here, but which could be added in the future.) Kablammo (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC) I partially restored the former citation format, but did not repeat single-source footnotes. Kablammo (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Inline citations inside paragraphs[edit]

Are there for a reason - to back up controversial claims. With more than one source in the article and many authors, one cannot guarantee that all info in a given paragraph comes from the citation at its end. Yes, it is likely, but to be safe, each sentence needs its own cite (and sometimes, specific claims inside sentneces need them too). PS. Cite 8 broken now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hyphens changed to ‐[edit]

Several months ago you changed hyphens to ‐ (this displays as a square on my computer) in edits such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suleiman_the_Magnificent&diff=prev&oldid=131248379, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Dudley%2C_1st_Earl_of_Leicester&diff=prev&oldid=130526028, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johan_van_Oldenbarnevelt&diff=prev&oldid=130525552, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghazala_Khan&diff=prev&oldid=130617156, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italian_War_of_1551%E2%80%931559&diff=prev&oldid=130623579 and others. In some of these cases (maybe in all) I cannot see what was wrong with the hyphen (refer Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dashes)#Hyphens). In any case, what is this ‐ that displays as a square (on my computer, at least)? thanks, Nurg (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Bombing of Dresden[edit]

Hi, as one of the editors of Bombing of Dresden in World War II, would you mind commenting here about a possible name change? There is a proposal to call the article simply Bombing of Dresden. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Daniel Boone[edit]

Please be patient with me, but I'm still learning. You made some edits to Daniel Boone that I don't understand--I'm not questioning them, I'm just trying to learn more. I understand changing "Boone" to "he," but don't know what was changed with the "...." edits [6]. Thanks for your help! Wakedream (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

hi[edit]

Hi. I found you in categories of users who can contribute in English and Portuguese. I myself am a native speaker of English, but I'm well on my way to learning Portuguese. Just check out my user page and talk page, and join in any of the discussions. To keep updated, you can even put a watch on my user page, which will automatically watch my talk page. :-) learnportuguese (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Churchill on Leningrad and Mannerheim in Siege of Leningrad[edit]

Olá Leandrod,

Thank you very much for your interest in sources. I'll return to updating the article after I'll have some time available, it's already after midnight here, and I have work to do. Here are two sources that I currently have on my desk, and there are more sources on British, American and Swedish communication with the Finns, and with the Russians, concerning the siege of Leningrad and related operations.

Sources:

1a. Winston S. Churchill. Memoires of the Second World War. An abridgment of the six volumes of The Second World War. By Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston. ISBN 0-395-59968-7 (pbk.)

Page 480. ...Hitler ordered the Army Group North to take Leningrad... Leningrad was encircled but not taken.

1b. Winston S. Churchill. The Second World War. Book III. The Grand Alliance. Chapter I. Our Soviet Ally. (I've been reading this at libraries, albeit the abridged volume is enough for my home)

2. Finland in the Second World War. Between Germany and Russia. By Olli Vehvvilainen. Translated by Gerard McAlister. Palgrave, 2002.

Page 89. One day before the Operation Barbarossa began, president Ryti stated to a parlimentary delegation... "If a war now breaks between Germany and Russia it could be to the advantage of the whole world."

Pages 98 - 101. Finnish forces crossed the line of Finland's 1939 border, and occupied Russian territories (east of Leningrad).

Page 100. Churchill appealed to Mannerheim in a personal letter: Surely your troops advanced far enough for security during the war and could now halt and give leave. (Note: Finns did not leave, but blocked the norhtern railroad and crossed the Svir River trying to connect with Germans to form the larger "second circle" around Leningrad. At the same time Finland expelled all British diplomats from Helsinki)

Page 100. On 6 December, Great Britain declared war on Finland. This was followed by declaration of war from Canada, Australia, India and New Zealand.

Page 104. Hitler proposed a Finnish border which would run from the White Sea to the Svir River and the Neva River.

Page 104. ..plans drawn up in the Finnish Headquarters in summer 1941, it was the task of the occupation authorities of eastern Karelia to prepare the region for permanent integration with Finland.

Page 105. Russian place names were replaced with Finnish ones. The population was segregated into 'nationals' and 'non-nationals'... and the latter were to be deported

Page 107. ... the fate of prisoners of war was even more horrible. In 1941 over 65,000 soviet soldier had been taken prisoner by the Finns. ... during the first winter, over 10,000 prisoners died of hunger and disease in the overcrouded camps. all in all, over 18,700 men died ... while in captivity in Finland.

Page 108. As hopes of a German victory evaporated, so also public references to a "greater Finland" wained.... in June 1944, ..a massive offensive by the Red Army forced the Finns to withdraw from the area (Eastern Karelia, north-east of Leningrad). Then the dream of a Greater Finland was finally buried.

Page 109. For two-and-a-half years the Finnish Army occupied the positions it had captured in autumn 1941 in Eastern Karelia and north of Leningrad.

Other sources that I've studied so far show that Churchill's pressure on Mannerheim to stop attacking Leningrad and its supply lines on the railroads to northern seaports was probably one of the very few explicit requests addressed directly to the enemy. Britain declared war with Finland, because Mannerheim ignored most of Churchill's plea, and crossed all border lines in efforts to build "Greater Finland" with the help from Hitler. However, people are fooled by smokescreen of lies and false declarations, while many secert diplomatic and military files and letters are never shown to public, because politicians do not like to expose their bloody and dirty secrets. My visits to the West Point Miliary academy produced mixed results, their library has very little on the Barbarossa and the Eastern Front. Library of Congress is much better. The St. Petersburg Public Library has the best selection of published sources and military maps of the siege of Leningrad. "Leninskaya Biblioteka" in Moscow is also pretty good on the subject, but nothing is as good as the "Museum o the Siege of Leningrad" in St. Petersburg. Everything is real in this museum: weapons, bombs, shells, uniforms, maps, documents, photos, and letters form all sides of the battle. A "must see" museum.

Thank you again,

Happy editing, Steveshelokhonov 08:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dandelion chip[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Dandelion chip, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. S. Dean Jameson 16:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Typographic changes[edit]

I do not understand the typographical changes you've been making, substituting something (I'm not sure what) for apostrophes. After your change to The Magnificent Ambersons (film), a search for "can't" brought up nothing found, although it was clearly there in the article. Whatever you substituted for the apostrophe was not recognized by the browser's search function.

Can you explain, please, the purpose of these changes, and justify them? If they confuse search functions, my feeling is that they should all be reverted. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "can't" should be avoided, but that's hardly the point. Your change has put words with apostrophes outside the reach of search engines. Please stop, and please revert the changes you have made to this point. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
This report at WP:ANI concerns the changes you've made. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ed here. Per the manual of style:

The exclusive use of straight quotes and apostrophes is recommended. They are easier to type in reliably, and to edit. Mixed use interferes with searching (a search for Korsakoff's syndrome could fail to find Korsakoff’s syndrome and vice versa).

--AniMate 04:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Leandrod. Having seen the thread at WP:ANI, my opinion is that all of your apostrophe replacements ought to be rolled back. If you have a comment on this, please reply either here or in the ANI thread. After discussion, if the consensus is that the original apostrophes are better, I hope we can persuade you to go back and undo the apostrophe changes. I notice that you've made other improvements, besides the apostrophes, and those should not be affected. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I haven’t found đe ðread there, do you have a more precise and stable URI? Anyway, as much as I disagree wið the manual of style on đat point, on grounds of style, feel free to revert to typewriter apostrophes. I won’t revert đem myself, because I have been fixing đat and other ugly typewriter idioms for ages wiðout no-one ever complaining, and I won’t just revert my ðousands of edits. Ðere are better ways of spending one’s life. By the way, is that specific instruction in the manual of style anyðing new? Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Stop the preßes — The talk page on the Manual of Style says there is no need of reverting. Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
A quick glance at this talk page is enough to show that these are hardly the first complaints you've received about your rather WP:POINTy crusade. And, why are you using non-Roman letters in your comments? This is English Wikipedia, not Anglo-Saxon Wikipedia, please use the letters which are normally associated with English, the odd letters make it very difficult to read what you've written. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, the whole-sale changing of typographical conventions in ways that are against the manual of style is a bad idea. The greater problem, however, is that others are challenging these edits as unhelpful, and you continue to make them. If such behavior continues, it may be stopped by an administrator who may take action to stop it against your will. No one wants this, so please stop this action until there exists widespread support for it. Thank you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Not so simple, I have learned a bit and refrained from doing stuff people complained about. Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Edits like this: [7] are unhelpful. You've changed some straight quotes to curly quotes, in an article where all the other quotes are straight. If the reason for such an edit is truly "consistency" then you should not have changed themi

If you look properly, the section I edited had a mix of curly and typewrite quotes before I edited it. And please, sign your messages. Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

In your edit summary you also use the word "concision". You may be interested to know that although "concision" means "conciseness" in Latin-languages such as French, in English it has a double meaning and is often taken to mean "mutilation". Particularly amongst those familiar with its use in biblical phrases such as "the valley of concision". DrKiernan (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Concision[edit]

Thank you! Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Quotation marks[edit]

You're right, standard quotes wasn't the best thing to call them; in any case, the MOS says at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_marks this:

"The exclusive use of straight quotes and apostrophes (see preceding section) is recommended. They are easier to type in reliably, and to edit. Mixed use interferes with some searches, such as those using the browser's search facility (a search for Korsakoff's syndrome could fail to find Korsakoff’s syndrome and vice versa)."

Do you have a specific reason as to why you choose to use typographical quotes? Gary King (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Typographical changes[edit]

I'm wondering why you made this change on History of evolutionary thought. You changed "19th-century" to "19th‐century" (that is, a hyphen was changed to a Unicode hex 2010 character). Using clever characters makes searching difficult, and is confusing to me and possibly other editors.

Also, is there a guideline saying that ranges should be abbreviated? This edit changes "pp. 73–74" to "pp. 73–4" which might be ok, although it seems unhelpful to me. I think that spelling out "73–74" would be better. Moreover this edit is confusing because it changes years "1084–1100" to "1084–100". Another edit changes years "1931-1933" to "1931–3" which can be defended, but why would it be an improvement? --Johnuniq (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on my talk where you said "OK, note taken". My opinion is that only the characters en dash and em dash should be used (keep the normal hyphen where a hyphen is wanted, and do not use "curly" quotes). Are any special characters other than em and en dash required?
I wanted to find some guidance on whether ranges of numbers should be abbreviated. It turns out (see below) that there is a clear statement regarding years: 1084–89, 1084–1089 and 1084–1100 are ok, but 1084–9 and 1084–100 are not ok (and my preference to always put the years in full is in fact a not-preferred style).
I could not find any clear statement about page numbers (you sometimes see quite weird notation used to refer to pages, so my preference would be to spell out a range like "pp. 73–74"), but there is a hint in MOS that the abbreviation "pp. 73–4" is preferred. The MOS says:
A closing CE-AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year (1881–1986). The full closing year is acceptable, but abbreviating it to a single digit (1881–6) or three digits (1881–886) is not.
For reference, I found a not very illuminating discussion. --Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Many years ago I worked with phototypesetting equipment where it would have been an abomination to use typewriter quotes, so I am sympathetic to your position. However, there are other factors here. First, on typical computer screens all fancy characters look ugly. Today I looked through a book typeset in the 1970s and it had very attractive type. I noticed that the em dash (correctly) had no space around it (and it looked terrific). The same cannot be said for em dashes on even a good quality PC screen, where an unspaced em dash usually looks yucky. I think the WP policy for no spaces is based on traditional typesetting with high quality fonts that are simply not available on PCs (therefore I prefer to use a spaced en dash). Similarly, curly quotes don't look that great on a PC. Likewise, an ellipsis often looks silly, and I prefer the WP style of three periods.
The second factor is searching. More and more people (particularly editors) are becoming sophisticated computer users, and will search within a page for text of interest. You and I understand why searching for He said "Hello" might not work if the article is using curly quotes. However, it would be very confusing to many people, and frustrating to everyone.
The third factor involves simplicity, consistency and style. We will never get articles to consistently use curly quotes and other esoteric punctuation, so my feeling is that it's better to choose simplicity. In quality documents that I intend to print (no longer with a phototypesetter!), I use curly quotes. But I don't print much these days, and once you get used to typewriter quotes they grow on you.
I see what you mean that a good argument can be made to use various different space characters. Of course different platforms and different browsers will probably have some troubles with these for a few more years. I haven't had to deal with that issue on WP. --Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Operation Colossus[edit]

Hello there. Please be careful when editing articles, especially those that are Good Articles or above. I put a lot of hard work into Operation Colossus, and I don't see why you were deleting references to material that needed to be cited. Please discuss on the talkpage of an article before you do anything like that in the future. Skinny87 (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know it isn't perfect, but the references did absolutely no harm, and I think they're helpful; I've certainly had no one complain about excessive referencing or deleting my references in any other article I've written or contributed to. Please be more considerate next time - posting on an article's talkpage is often the best solution. Skinny87 (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference needed[edit]

I saw you added a reference http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/1998/04/25/bosta25.xml to the article about Antony Beevor. Could you add the title of this article, please, since without title the Template:Cite web produces a "broken citation" error. Debresser (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the link is dead, and even on www.archive.org it doesn't work. Have a look in a few minutes to see what I did. Debresser (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We could, of course, also delete it. However the Telegraph is archiving its publicated material (so far down to 2000), so it is reasonable to leave this link and to search for it on their webarchive in another year or so. Debresser (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hyphens and dashes[edit]

So I was a little confused about the edits you made to a few of the sigma lens articles. So I did some digging on the MOS pages, and realized when I hit the "-" key on keypad, that is a hyphen, not a dash! Shit! This means that most lens articles are not named properly. So from now on I make sure to use – , not - , but not that either — . Roger that! Nebrot (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Old St Paul's Cathedral GAR notice[edit]

Old St Paul's Cathedral has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Cite formatting[edit]

Thanks for your efforts to revise the formatting of some of the citations on 2009 flu pandemic. However, there have been earlier discussions about the alternatives with references to WP:Cite, specifically [8]. I personally prefer the simpler version, without a template, because it's shorter, quicker, and easier to edit. It also allows for the "ref name" usage where multiple references to the same cite may be used.

However, if you feel that for specific reasons the template style is best, you may want to post a discussion on the talk page since having two styles intermingled makes the pages more complex for future editors. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Typography on Medium format (film)[edit]

Hey, I'm curious why you changed one of the 'x' characters to × but not others, in your recent edit to Medium format (film). (Original was 4"x5" size and it was changed to 4”×5” size. As the article was strewn with a mishmash of x and ×, I'd changed them all to x for consistency.

I really don't mind either way, but if you're going to change one would you please change them all to keep consistency? Thanks! --RabidDeity (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick revision. Looks great! --RabidDeity (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Leandrod. You have new messages at Talk:Indian independence movement.
Message added SBC-YPR (talk) 10:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Leandrod! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,785 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Helen Caldwell - Find sources: "Helen Caldwell" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Viceroyalty of Brazil[edit]

Leandrod, I'm interested to know what references you used to base the above page. I'm asking because in the Portuguese Wikipedia has this as pt:Estado do Brasil and not as a viceroyality. I've also read in pt:Anexo:Lista de governadores do Brasil colonial that even though there were vice-roys, they governed "states" and not "viceroyalities". I'll be happy to get any information you have on this. Thanks. Renato (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hugh Darwen[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Hugh Darwen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance 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. UKWikiGuy (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hugh Darwen[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Hugh Darwen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance 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. UKWikiGuy (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Hugh Darwen for deletion[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg

A discussion has begun about whether the article Hugh Darwen, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Darwen until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. UKWikiGuy (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOS[edit]

Mdashes shouldn't be spaced per MOS:DASH, as was your edit here. Please also take a look at WP:NBSP, and per WP:PERCENT there should not be a space between numbers and % symbols as you did here. In light of that, you may want to take another look at your edits to the Ming Dynasty article where you have introduced spaced mdashes. Nev1 (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to the Lindow Man articles, such as this, are going against the manual of style and are becoming disruptive. Please stop. Nev1 (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, the excessive use of non-break spaces is wrong. Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Citation templates[edit]

Hi Leandrod, just to let you know that citation templates shouldn't be added to articles that already use another method of writing references, as you did here. See WP:CITECONSENSUS. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

ARM architecture[edit]

Regarding your recent edits to this article, I feel I should point out that these appear to be contrary to the MoS (specifically WP:UNITS) - it stipulates that "Values and unit symbols are separated by a non-breaking space.". Regards, Letdorf (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC).

More specifically, thin non-breaking spaces, and that is what I edited into there. Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid can't find anything in WP:UNITS recommending the use of thin spaces in this case. However, WP:NBSP says "A literal hard space, such as one of the Unicode non-breaking space characters, should not be used". Regards, Letdorf (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC).

Nomination of Hugh Darwen for deletion[edit]

The article Hugh Darwen is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Darwen until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. UKWikiGuy (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Hugh Darwen. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011[edit]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. UKWikiGuy (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Hugh Darwen. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. UKWikiGuy (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: User:UKWikiGuy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. UKWikiGuy (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You did not ask for clarification. And turning the argument around doesn't make any sense. You can not assume good faith for a subject matter. And why do you keep introducing foreign characters and broken English into the English wikipedia? UKWikiGuy (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
And you just posted yet another personal attack on my talk page, with even more foreign characters. Forgive me if I am wrong but {þ, ð, ð, ß} are not English characters UKWikiGuy (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
You are clearly not familiar with the English language. This is not an attack, this is an observation. Feel free to familiarise yourself with the Roman alphabet, the only one used for written English. I know what you are doing, you are using foreign letters to phonetically spell English words, but this is wrong and makes what you are saying incorrect English UKWikiGuy (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces[edit]

Hello! I thank you for your hard work fixing the typography in articles. I have run into a problem though. Where you have replaced non-breaking spaces ( & n b s p ; ) such as here diff, the character you're using to replace it shows up as a little box in my browser. Of course that means my browser doesn't recognize the character. Could you please use a more generally recognized non-breaking space character since a lot of people around the world probably have the same problem as I do. Thanks for your time! --Ashanda (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Þin, non-breaking spaces
Unfortunately, ðe standard non-breaking space is typographically incorrect for quite some situations. Which browser are you using, in which version and on which platform and version?
Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've copied your comments back here; my preference - as I have stated in my talk page header - is to keep converstions in one place and coherent. I see from previous comments on this page and by your reply to me, that you seem to enjoy using non-standard characters such as Thorn and Eth. Please review the manual of style for the consensus we as a community have formed as to which typography works best considering that the vast majority of the world is accessing the site on less than the most advanced browsers. Thank you. --Ashanda (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

To add to what the others have said above: if you wish to replace non-breaking space characters by something with the same width as a normal space, a better way do it is with the {{nowrap}} template. Doing it that way avoids using nonstandard characters that do not work as well in many browsers. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, please stop doing this. nbsp is the documented standard to use in the WP:MOS. DMacks (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I concur. Please stop inserting these "thin, non-breaking spaces." nbsp is the accepted standard on Wikipedia. As it says in MOS:NBSP,
A literal hard space, such as one of the Unicode non-breaking space characters, should not be 
used, since some web browsers will not load them properly when editing.

Jeh (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, if you persist with these habits of using non-standard characters despite weeks of requests from other editors for you to stop, I would consider the behavior to be disruptive and would bring it up at WP:ANI. I would rather not, so please stop now. Ashanda (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edits you made to Lithium-ion battery, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia.
While a few of the changes you made there were valid, your insistence on replacing spaces with Unicode "thin, non-breaking spaces", your changing the &-codes for things like en-dashes to the Unicode en-dash, etc., are contrary to WP:MOS. Inserting a space (any kind of space) after the thousands digits of years is particularly egregious: We just don't format years that way, and your doing so will break scripts that automatically parse dates in article text and in template parameters. Please stop, and familiarize yourself with WP:MOS, and MOS:NBSP in particular. diff Jeh (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Nemerle[edit]

Deletionists are out of hand. The page on delete shows a clear, overwhelming majority on keep, and yet everything was deleted? — Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I moved your question from the talk page of a deleted article, which will itself be deleted. The numerous keep !votes were obvious meatpuppets and therefore didn't count for much in the assessment done by the closing admin. If you have an issue with this decision, you should state it at Wikipedia:DRV#Nemerle. Favonian (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Time formats[edit]

Out of interest, why are you changing time formats from eg 02:45 to 2h45 as seen in these edits? I have reverted this particular set, but is there an actual reason for this? pablo 23:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011[edit]

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in South African Republic. There is a Manual of Style, edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Your date formatting in particular is not something that is done on Wikipedia. Both that and your insistence on using Unicode characters instead of HTML markup like nbsp are directly prohibited by WP's Manual of Style. Please stop. diff Jeh (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

References[edit]

Please don't break up notes making a continuous point in this way. Also, this and Reza Abbasi are still being expanded, & it is unhelpful to tinker with refs in this way. See WP:CITATION. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Indonesian killings of 1965–1966[edit]

Hi there. Your work on this article has broken some of the citations and introduced an unusual superscript adjacent footnotes in some of the prose.

Eg, the numbers 17 and 21 are showing in the prose at the end of footnote [1] The party's assertive efforts to speed up land reform provoked existing landowners and threatened the social position of Islamic clerics.[1]:17,21

Could you please fix it up? thanks --Merbabu (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

PS - also occurring on Transition to the New Order. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Your most recent edit: Huh? Could you please explain? thanks --Merbabu (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
And, in Indonesia - a feature article. Is it intentional that the page numbers appear in the prose? It looks very ugly IMO. If it is intentional, could you please direct me to the appropriate guideline (the MOS?). thanks --Merbabu (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
With the rp template. So one can search for, and fix, the miryad broken references in the Indonesia articles. Clear enough?— Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not clear. Could you please clarify the nature of the broken references problem that you see, and how messing around with citation formats fixes it - ie, why are the page numbers in the prose? Can you show me other examples? Or where there is consensus/guideline/etc to do this? I request that you cease this until it is understood and agreed. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Since it appears you are insistent on ignoring reasonable requests for clarification and for consensus (not helped by your unclear edit summaries), I've reverted your latest unusual edits (one of which includes another breaking of the citation that I had already fixed). Please respond with clarity. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
You said:
The Indonesian articles have many references pointing to non-existing edition years, or to texts not mentioned in the references sections, and with inconsistent formatting. By using the rp template, which you should have looked into first thing, we consolidate references so the note lists become more manageable, the references become more consistent, and researching them becomes feasible.
It is OK for me to stop now as it is quite late now, but you really should have researched before requesting anything.
I cannot see how your unusual reference format fixes a problem of "non-existing edition years" or texts not mentioned in the references section. Please show specific examples, and I might be able to assist to quickly find them.
I have researched and could find no mention of the rp template. It would have been nice if you provided an explanation or a link regarding its usage. --Merbabu (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. That's enough. You have been warned numerous times about your long-term pattern of MOS-breaking edits. Stop. Your edits to Ted Haggard contravene standards for WP:ELLIPSES and accessdate format for {{cite}}, and make other "your personal preference" choices with no reason or other basis. DMacks (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop changing reference formats[edit]

Knock it off. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

There are no "redundant refs"[edit]

Re: [9]. Please stop removing references. All sentences should be cited, and if they are based on multiple sources, than they will have multiple refs attached. I am sure your edit was in good faith, but it was, unfortunately, not helpful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: I have just noticed you did a similar edit at another article (Armoured trains of Poland). While I realize this occurred before my request above, as it does indicate a recurring pattern, I have to ask you, in the strongest possible way, to stop damaging the work of other editors that way. No references are redundant. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

At the same time, I would like to thank you for many other helpful edits you do, such as punctuation, grammar, of citation template introduction. But please, stop removing references. Even if they appear redundant now, we can never now when somebody will break the para, insert something into it, move sentences around or copy some to another article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Piotrus here. I’ve seen on a number of occasions people throw in cite tags or even dispute and remove info from mid-paragraph where the citation is a few sentences later. It gets worse when people start moving info around (to which Piotrus alludes). --Merbabu (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Same thing here. Using page numbers is a perfectly acceptable citation style. Ironholds (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

quotation marks[edit]

Hi Leandrod, Thanks for editing The Fox and the Cat (fable), formatting the cite and fixing the quotation marks. I'd never seen that before, that kind of quotation done with {{q |}} - it looks good, hugs the words a bit more. I've just done a quick look for guidelines on when to use it; can't see anything in Wikipedia:PUNCTUATION. Is there a page on this? all the best, --Annielogue (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't make mayor changes to widely used templates without discussing them first[edit]

Hey, I saw you tried to change the font size in {{su}}, which has a high impact on the layout. This template is widely used, so any changes will impact a lot of Wikipedia. There has been a long history of debates about font, font size and text location for this template and others that use it. The current settings where arrived at through consensus and other templates depend on these settings. I trust you'll understand why your changes were reverted. Might I suggest you consider suggesting changes on the talk pages before implementing them in such cases in the future? Thanks!     SkyLined (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I did search for a history of discussion on the su template, but missed it. Pointers? — Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 10:20 pm, Yesterday (UTC+2)
You're missing the point: when considering non-trivial changes to widely used templates, you should not assume that you know what's best. A few days delay while waiting for feedback won't hurt Wikipedia, but accidentally messing up the layout of a lot pages will.     SkyLined (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

195th (Airlanding) Field Ambulance[edit]

I have reverted your edits to 195th (Airlanding) Field Ambulance, I am assuming good faith as I am not sure what you were attempting to do.Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Consolidating references - removing page numbers.[edit]

Your edits to Battle of Osan removed the page numbers of many references. Please do not do this. Page numbers are required in references. I see that you have been told about this before. Please desist. (Hohum @) 21:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You changed citation styles without explanation or discussion. See WP:CITEVAR. (Hohum @) 13:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thanks for improving the orthography of Heydar Aliyev Foundation. You found quite a few things I missed, and I am grateful! Sharktopustalk 13:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Despite the above recognition[edit]

Everything I have seen of your referencing goes completely against every referencing standard that I was ever taught as a reference librarian. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC).

It's also against much of WP:MOS. But repeated complaints and warnings seem to fall on deaf ears. I wonder if we should just form the Leandrod reversion cabal? Jeh (talk) 03:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
How is it against which points of the MOS, please? — Leandro GFC Dutra (talk)
I've mentioned a few such points before. They're in the edit history on this page. But given your eagerness to "improve" so many points of typography and similar I would suggest that you read WP:MOS for yourself before continuing. Jeh (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
No, you never said anything about referencing I could find. — Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
You're splitting hairs. I mentioned several MOS issues before. No, not specifically about referencing. Please become familiar with MOS, and not just the sections on referencing. If you disagree with MOS the right approach is to go to the talk pages there and argue for a change in MOS, not to blithely continue to edit against consensus even after the dozens of complaints here. Jeh (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Leandro: it might be wise to consider why people are complaining before trying to prove their complaints unfounded or incorrect. Some complaints may not be worded correctly and/or you may disagree with them, but they are rarely unfounded. Dismissing criticism or attacking the critic is not very constructive.     SkyLined (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
At the risk of piling it on, it should be said that your response to my queries above (and yes, later my complaint) about your referencing system was also uncalled for - ie, berating me for not succeeding in finding information on it myself. Ie, one shouldn't turn issues about their editing into issues about oneself. --Merbabu (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to pile on here, because there's obviously a need for it. You altered the reference system at Mary Rose just now without even attempting to check whether it was welcome or not. Please don't do stuff like that.
Peter Isotalo 07:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
More of the same... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC).

endash changes[edit]

Hi. In your 19:31, 10 July 2011 edit, changing hyphens to endashes, the multi-chapters "Exodus 20-23" reference was accidently changed to "Exodus 20–3". It was corrected back to 20-23, so no sweat. Your other edits seem to be improvements. Thanks. —Telpardec (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Planetary boundaries[edit]

Why are you changing, apparently without any agreement, all the citation formats in Planetary boundaries to what appears to be your personal preference. The citation are already consistently formatted in a considered style, and for good reasons. Among other things, the massive use of templates like this makes it difficult to maintain complex articles, as you will already know if you write articles like that yourself. It use to be that you did not just barge onto an article other people have spent a lot of time writing, and unilaterally format the citations to suit yourself. You were meant to first establish whether there was a consensus for such a change on the article talk page. If the guidelines have changed, and the (often inadequate) templates are now required, then I apologize for being so out of touch. But if they have not, then what do you think you are doing? --Epipelagic (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The formatting is anything but consistent. Just check the overlength lists of authors, the missing details, wrong hyperlinks, bad typography and so on which I fixed. I am tempted to leave it bad as that, as it is bad philosophy of science anyway. But I will explain myself at the talk page.
Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you still with us on Planetary boundaries? Sure, both of you guys should pull your horns in a bit, but I think there is scope for all us to work out some improvements. I hope you will join me there to work out the details. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Digit removal[edit]

It would be best if you'd stop removing digits altogether, but if you insist on taking them out of years, you MUST leave exactly 2 digits, not 1, not 3. Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that you were warned about this exact issue years ago. It is now time for you to stop. I'd hate to see an editor with a long history of cleanups get blocked for a similarly long history of disregarding consensus standards. DMacks (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Please also see MOS:DASH; WP does not use spaced em dashes like you did in this edit. And see MOS:NUMBERS and WP:YEAR about the digits. Dicklyon (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

And the past tense of "flee" is not "flew". Please don't edit what you don't understand. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Jobim[edit]

I wish you had discussed the move at Tom Jobim's talk page. He himself didn't use the circumflex, and it isn't featured on any of his album covers. It may be grammatically correct, but if that were a case closer, then there wouldn't be ten million words on Novak Djokovic. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverted, consistent with longstanding consensus on the article talk page, also with WP:MOS. Jeh (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Did search it in the talk page, found nothing, nor in the MoS. Slav names have no bearing in Portuguese names. As it is, it is simply incorrect, and would be pronounced with the accent in the i, not in the first o.
Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
There is the very first section on the talk page, the one named "Circumflex accent. Also on the talk page there is a giant green block of archived discussion under "Requested move". From WP:MOS, section 2.1 "Article titles", the very first bullet item links to WP:Naming conventions (use English). There it says "Follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language". Jeh (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tory (British political party), you may be blocked from editing. By repeating ignoring advice to stop doing improper digit removal from dates and page ranges, you are making yourself a vandal. Please stop. You can respond here if you don't understand. If you keep it up, I will seek to have you blocked. Dicklyon (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Enough already. I've reverted your edits on Indonesian National Revolution. There have been numerous complaints on your talk page and no support for your editing change, let alone any policy/MOS support. Given the unanimous rejection of your referencing changes, I am considering reverting all future such changes you make. --Merbabu (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion[edit]

Race to Yalu Map.gif Congratulations!
Thanks for all the work you did in making Battle of Pakchon a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated.

In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop[edit]

The edits in North American P-51 Mustang are not only unnecessary but in most cases, wrong in terms of format. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC).

also in Battle of Tripoli. there is no need to change completed free-formatted citations (i.e., ones that already contain the core ingredients of "author", "date", "publication", "title" and "access date") to a template format. (WP:CITET states: "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged"). this is especially annoying when you persist in using the "citation" (Template:Citation) version which uses different styling (punctuation, et al.) than the "cite news" (template:cite news) and "cite web" (template:cite web) version , which are already very established as the article's style where templates have been used. also, many of your "reference format" edits are imprecise and/or incomplete to boot. (e.g., television stations and other non-print sources put in a "newspaper" parameter). as a result, many of your edits have to be cleaned up. not very productive use of anyone's time. regards.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Please stop you're disruptive edits with regard to citation style. They are against policy and against arbitration rulings, as has been pointed out to you before. DrKiernan (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DrKiernan (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Leandrod, please take note of the ANI discussion (direct link) and in particular the suggestions offered. I think there are some valid concerns raised and also several suggestions for improving your contributions. We would greatly appreciate your input there. Thanks! N419BH 07:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I mention your edit[edit]

Here. Perhaps a script you use is broken? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 05:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011[edit]

Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to Ford Crown Victoria. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this article.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia.

See in particular WP:OTHERDATE. "Dates that are given as ranges should follow the same patterns as given above for birth and death dates." "The same patterns" clearly indicate that simple year ranges are to use four digits for both start and end of the range. Please stop doing this. Jeh (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Ford Landau. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. 1) Years of dates should not be formatted with spaces between the thousands and the other digits (see WP:DATE) 2) Dashes used as separators in list items should be spaced en dashes, not spaced em dashes (see WP:ENDASH), in fact as far as I can tell, spaced em dashes should never be used in WP at all. 3) digit grouping in other numbers besides years is optional for four-digit numbers and using Unicode space characters as you did is strictly forbidden, as they do not render properly in some browsers (see WP:NBSP) Jeh (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Add Tupolev Tu-144 to the list. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC).
Tupolev Tu-160 too. N419BH 21:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI[edit]

There is a new discussion at WP:ANI regarding a series of issues in which you are involved. N419BH 21:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Leandrod (again). Leandrod, you may be blocked if you continue to ignore the concerns that have been expressed at ANI. Please consider responding there. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for Disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Per a discussion at WP:ANI#User:Leandrod (again). If you will agree to refrain from making mass changes to article style and punctuation in the future, you may be unblocked. The editors in the thread assert there is a problem with your WP:COMPETENCE. You are making extra work for others with your unreasonable changes. Many people have left messages on your talk page to explain the problem, but you ignore their feedback. EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Still happening. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC).
And without a peep of response to comments here or to the ANI. Jeh (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This was not a minor edit. Please don't flag edits that are in any way changing the meaning as minor. See Help:Minor edits. --John (talk) 07:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked again[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jayron32 17:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Please note that this block is because of your refusal to communicate more than anything. Many editors have, for months, been asking you questions about your editing, and you have refused to even acknowledge them. This block is not intended to last forever, it is only intended to last until you decide you wish to communicate with others and are willing to work collaboratively. It will last exactly as long as you want it to. --Jayron32 17:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Leandrod, please see WP:ANI#Leandrod, the new discussion at ANI which led to this action. If you wish to respond, you can answer here on your talk page and admins and other editors will see your reply. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I hope Leandrod comes to the party. sigh --Merbabu (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Hugh Darwen for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hugh Darwen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Darwen (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. UKWikiGuy (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)