User talk:Legion fi

Welcome! Hello

I don't understand your comments on the cocoa bean. I erased som of the standings not verified scientific (or wrong) and put in some references. You must be more precise. But please edit wrong grammar or spelling. I don't know if I write in the right way now. so please forgive me.

Marco Maya —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcoMaya (talk • contribs) 10:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Legion fi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Miranda 09:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please mind your own business

No offence meant, but please stop interfering with my talk-page. I erased a nuisance-post from it. That's my choice, and none of your affair. -- Lonewolf BC 07:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned talk page comments

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! —Viriditas | Talk 05:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comments

Aloha. WP:1.0/Assess does not require comments. There are a huge number of articles to assess, which is why such a requirement would be fruitless. Look at the FAQ for your own project: "Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning." If you would like me to explain my assessment for a particular set of articles, I would be happy to do so. Which articles would you like me to add comments for? —Viriditas | Talk 05:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. If you need help with anything, don't hesitate to contact me. —Viriditas | Talk 05:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samael Aun Weor

Hello, in May this year you added a tag to the Samael Aun Weor page that it needed more references from reliable third-party sources. I replied to your request on the discussion page stating that I managed to find one reliable third-party source which I added, but that other than that there are very few if any reliable third-party sources to add. If you still think more references are needed, then please place "citation needed" tags at the appropriate places in the text and I will look into if I can find a reliable source for it or if that portion has to be deleted. Thank you. Anton H 10:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Bailey

Since there is an RfC, this would be a good time to add any comments you might have about the article. Kwork 17:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that request. Since you were the one who assessed the Alice Bailey article, and it has undergone a great deal of change since that time, and there is a Request for Comments, perhaps you would drop by again and read through the Talk page and the article and give us your opinion. Third parties are needed now.

Nmeless Date Stamp 02:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Legion fi. Thanks for taking another look at the Alice Bailey article. I appreciate your going to the trouble of making your observations. I just wish more people had added their comments also. Kwork 18:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico

Thank you very much, Legion fi, for making observations to my edits. Perhaps you're right in most cases. As soon as I finish the translation job I am doing right now I will go back to the Wikipedia page about Mexico to read/review your changes. ¡Muchas gracias, paisano!correogsk (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Glitch City

An article that you have been involved in editing, Glitch City, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glitch City. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Artichoker (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Saadé

I added some references to Jacques Saadé. --Eastmain (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChirppieChirppie (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I forgot how to reply to a certain talk Legion fi. I just edited this page to reply to you. Anyway, I added the name of the source with regards to the addition I made under the biography of Thalia. Could you kindly please correct the way I posted the sources. Thank you. (user talk:Chirppie)

Clarification

On The Devil's Footprints, the particular section I removed related to "jumping mice" was vandalism. This has since been altered to a suitable explanation, but the particular section I removed was rather obviously vandalism, and the IP address behind the edits had been warned and/or blocked for vandalism several times before. Just clarifying that. Malendras (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thornhill High

Hello Please could you un-revert the Thornhill High article.

Look in the discussion and you will see my reason for removing this content. It contravenes copyright because it was written by me and lifted word for word without permission or acknowledgment. It contains material which I do not want on Wikipedia.

125.238.85.223 (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear... The IP was right. Even if it wasn't written by him, the source constitutes self-published material. Therefore I agreed to the IP request and reverted myself --Legion fi (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

In my opinion, there was an assertion of notability. I will not apologise for abiding by policy. You should mention in future that the page has been deleted before. Thanks. -Toon⁰⁵ 18:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been deleted now anyway, the point is moot. -Toon⁰⁵ 13:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment of Isaac Newton's occult studies

Hey there! Just checking if you've had any time to look at the article? If not, no biggie, but I'm curious because I'm thinking of adding in a new sub-section and don't know if I should wait or rush it in. Let me know on my User_talk:Trippz. Thanks --Trippz (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wylfions

Hi there Legion fi.

I noticed that you had already contacted Ofthefairykin about an edit to Fairy. They have recently added a new article Wylfions, a kind of flower fairy, which I flagged for concerns about references and context. I did a google for Wylfion and could not find any mention, and so I have doubts about whether the article should remain . However it is a subject that is completely outside of my knowledge, so perhaps if you do have more knowledge in this area you could have a look at the article and see what you think. If not, sorry to have bothered you.

Cheers

WhaleyTim (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV policy apparently applies only to pro-left-wing articles

Hello. This is in response to your June 1, 2008 entry in my talk page, thus:

June 2008

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to 2008 Andean diplomatic crisis. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Legion fi (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why there are so many advocates for the cause of a criminal dictator and tyrant as Fidel Castro and his accomplices, defending him and his "deeds" everywhere in Wikipedia, as if he were a sacred icon. Assume good faith in view of a murderous, ruthless strongman that has taken several thousand lives, devastated additional several million more lives, forced another couple of millions into exile, and tyrannized his country for half a century? More than naive, preposterous. Even more than preposterous, ridiculous.

Moreover, the Cuban "leader", as Castro is frequently called in this Encyclopedia, exported his Cuban revolution to ten Latin American countries in the 1960s, fostering, financing, arming and even manning guerrilla warfare until today (i.e. Colombia), threatening to topple democratic governments all over the region for a whole decade and claiming thousands of more lives! Leftist and ignorant WP editors have come to the extreme of completely suppressing all the texts referencing Cuban subversive activities in Latin America, as if they never existed. Other examples abound. In the Augusto Pinochet article, and in practically all the Chilean 1973 coup d’etat articles, there are many references to the CIA’s involvement in Chile, which was undeniably true. But in the same articles, no mention of the thousands of Cuban “advisors” present in Chile at the time is anywhere to be found (what were they doing there, were they tourists?). No mention is allowed of the complete, country-wide disaster that the regime of Allende (another "sacred icon") was leading the country to, under Cuban direction. Is Wikipedia full of commited, persistent comunnists, hiding under WP:NPOV? It sure looks like it. --13:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy

When people make edits leaving a reason in the edit summary and put an explanation in the talk page it is unlikely to be vandalism. Reverting such edits as vandalism is discourteous.--20.133.0.13 (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piracy in Somalia

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Piracy in Somalia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Mjroots (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it was vandalism. The added material that you removed came from a WP:RS. As per discussion on the talk page, the threshold is verifiablilty, not truth. To be fair, I gave the IP editor the same warning as you, and am not minded to take it any further than that. Mjroots (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epilepsy Is Dancing speedy deletion

A little over zealous of you to put the speedy deletion box in the page before I'd finished putting the reference in. There are thousands of articles for music singles. Why have you singled this one out? Not a very nice way to welcome someone to wikipedia either. Nwatts88 (talk) 08:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epilepsy Is Dancing

Hey, the non-notable musical recording tag is normally only meant to be used for musical recordings of bands without articles. If you have further concerns about the inclusion of this page I'd advise you to take it to AfD. Ironholds (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the idea of the leniency of it is that per WP:MUSIC most musical recordings, especially singles, will be notable if the band is notable. In future if you think the tag is incorrect it is best to remove it rather than waiting for an admin to turn up; that can take rather a while, and there is no harm in letting it be. After all, if you (the tagger) have doubts about the applicability of the tag then others are likely to as well. Ironholds (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derkovits Gyula

the Derkovits Gyula already exists in other languages [1].

I am new on wiki and I don't know how to connect them with the English one that I created (Ddaann2 (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Hacer un java

Hello Legion fi. I am just letting you know that I deleted Hacer un java, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for the SD. I was not very sure about the correct criteria, but it was obvious to me that it wasn´t an encyclopedic entry. Again, thank you.--Legion fi (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Jessica adona

Hello Legion fi. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jessica adona, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims importance/significance of the subject. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		for a way of making up my accident towards you and your good work patrolling articles :) SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 21:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :D --Legion fi (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Ben Klassen Birthdate

why do you keep changing back his birthdate to the 20th?? i'm going to leave it for now, but once i can put in the reference i'll change it back to the 7th. are you OK with that? --Gummy Dummy (talk) 07:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered in his talk page --Legion fi (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

>>>UPDATE: you are correct, the 20th also shows up as his birthdate. so what is the proper way to go about this when there are conflicting birthdates?? i'm sure it's not the first time it's happened on wikipedia. please get back to me, thanks.--Gummy Dummy (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This only warning you will receive regarding beating me to vandalism. Please stop. If you continue, somebody else will give you a barnstar. Wayne Olajuwon chat 00:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!! I'll try. :D --Legion fi (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't have to take the message very seriously. Wayne Olajuwon chat 00:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I know. :) --Legion fi (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

San Lorenzo Christian School

I've reverted your change of the speedy tag on this page as schools are specifically excluded from the A7 criterion. Per the criteria, A7 applies to "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools)" (my emphasis). If you not already aware of the full criteria (at WP:CSD) then please make yourself aware of these before tagging using Twinkle as, I believe, Twinkle does not give the full criteria. Dpmuk (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are fully aware of the criteria it begs the question why you tagged this as A7. That said if you are fully aware of the criteria I apologise if I caused you any offence - this was not intended and many experienced editors miss the schools exception and so my message was just informational, I was not assuming bad faith. Yes I did not look at your contributions but I did have a quick look at your talk page and notice you had a few messages about CSDs so I thought I'd mention the Twinkle issue as some users aren't aware of the full criteria - again sorry if this caused you any offence but it was only meant to be information.

I was not wikilawyering but merely trying to make an admin life easier by correctly tagging the article. Schools are specifically excluded from A7 for a reason - namely the fact that nearly all secondary schools are kept at AfD - and this is why I wanted to make sure you were aware of it. (As an aside I don't think all secondary schools are notable although consensus seems to be against me and given that consensus I agree they're not, nor should they be, A7 candidates).

Finally our deletion policy specifically allows anyone but the page creator to remove a speedy tag - this makes sense as speedy deletions are meant to be uncontroversial and if someone (especially an editor in good standing) disagrees they're clearly not - so I ask you not to revert any removal I do of CSD tags. I would also note that I always do leave a note stating why, although unless this needs to be a long note, it will be in the edit log rather than on the talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well

crap gets in - I didnt bother to check history when i saw it - reasonable chance of survival after translation - is overly optimistic - when language stuff like that gets in we rarely see the original editor return to fixit - case of rules dont fit Satu Suro 05:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Tech massacre

Revert because of "unreliable sources"?? The Associated Press is unreliable now?? Geĸrίtzl (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for your input. The definition of exorcism (dictionary.com) is to expel or attempt to expel (one or more evil spirits) from (a person or place believed to be possessed or haunted), by prayers, adjurations, and religious rites. The AP article says a pastor claimed the boy had a "demonic power." Another said Cho's problem needed to be solved by "spiritual power" and needed "deliverance from the demonic power." While the article never used the term "exorcism" clearly this is what they are talking about -- it could be nothing else. So it's perfectly accurate to say the boy's mother was seeking exorcism. Don't you agree? Geĸrίtzl (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input again. Let me point out articles that claim those Korean pastors are well-known for performing exorcisms. I don't want to waste my time tonight on the WP article but feel free if you would like to. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/21/AR2009102104110.html - "Fairfax teen may have died in Korean exorcism, police say" -- "...Exorcisms have a long history in Korean theology, experts said." -- also (this one is more directly related to the case), "Cops probe whether exorcism caused Va. teen death" -- http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010118890_apusfamilyexorcismprobe.html -- Oct 22 2009. Knock yourself out if you'd like to add either or both of those references. I would actually appreciate it, as I'm busy working on some freelance writing right now - thanks. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I found some time to fix it. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care enough to fight over it, but when I get time I'll take a look at the talk page (which you should have used first, instead of reverting my edits outright, according to WP policy). I know that you are simply wrong: using a synonym is NOT original research. And you need to read farther into the references I provided. My "[exorcism]" was not OR, it is in the text, explicitly. You have to read the articles from beginning to end. I understand and respect what you are trying to do, but still, you are simply wrong. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1968 Tlatelolco Massacre.

Good job with the edits in the Tlatelolco massacre page, I did however edit your edit removing the description of how it began which you justified with the rationale that the surrounding of the plaza had been mentioned elsewhere.

First, the relevant text is important in that it gives information as to how the even in question (the massacre itself, not the rally) began. You can not just remove that outright, and the event is called "Tlatelolco Massacre" for a reason, IE: it was a massacre.

Second, although it was already mentioned that the plaza was surrounded, the question of when is very relevant to the event. 174.3.242.191 (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]