User talk:wikiLeon


Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #176

Message!

Home Talk Wikipedians Userboxes Ribbons Awards Guide Tasks

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

User talk:WikiLeon/header

Talkback Elizium23

Hello, WikiLeon. You have new messages at Elizium23's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Orphaned non-free image File:Justin.tv screenshot.png

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Justin.tv screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Hello, I'm 49.150.87.188. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Template:Iglesia ni Cristo because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! --49.150.87.188 (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HasteurBot CSDs

Hi there, couple points:

The hasteurBot talk page is fully protected to prevent users (like yourself) from accidentally sending messages that will not be read by an automated process. Please undo your additions to the page.
CSD:G13 says any page that has not been edited in the past 6 months prior to the nomination so as to indicate that nominating a page does not instantly make the page ineligible.
The bot takes the even more safe position of only nominating pages that have gone unedited for 6 months + 30 more days to give editors more time to try and save their work by logging a single registered edit.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dual-Purpose Cowpea was eligible for G13 as of the nomination as the previous edit prior to the G13 nomination was July 3rd 2014 which makes it at least 6 months and 30 days stale.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fiona Finlay was eligible for G13 as of the nomination as the previous edit prior to the G13 nomination was July 6, 2014 which makes it 6 months and 30 days stale.

If you hare having difficulty with understanding the policy and practice of CSD:G13 either ask questions or stay away from evaluating CSD:G13 nominations. If this behavior of turning down perfectly valid G13 nominations continues I will ask other admins who have evaluated these nominations in the past (such as DGG and Sphilbrick) to help enlighten you on the policy. Hasteur (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. I must have misread the timestamps from DGG's reviews on both AfCs. My apologies. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 12:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happens, no big deal.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why full protection?

Not sure why you felt this [1] was necessary. The article hadn't been edited for nearly 6 hours when you locked it. While there was some back and forth, discussion was being attempted and there really was no disruption there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add my voice, I too am concerned about this action and wonder, with respect, whether an adequate investigation of the article's history was performed. There have been false death dates added by some half-dozen editors; hardly an onslaught. There has been (mostly minor) back and forth with respect to (mostly minor) grammatical issues, of which I have been a part; none of this rose to the level of edit-warring, IMHO. In short, Winkelvi is correct, and I request that protection be lifted. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbi Kristina Brown

Feel like weighing in here? TIA. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Björnson‎

Hi! Thanks for your help at Maria Björnson‎. There's a little problem, though: whatever you did doesn't seem to have worked! I can still see the versions of the article that should be hidden, and I'm not an admin (or of course I'd have done the revdel myself). Just to be clear: what I expect to see is that the time and date of the offending edits is struck through and greyed out, but that the editors' names are still visible in full technicolor for attribution - as for example here. Would you mind looking at it again? I'd be grateful. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done I'm not sure why it glitched out. But it appears to work after I did it again. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 05:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! But I'm afraid you've overshot the mark this time – normally the username(s) and edit summaries are left visible, and just the date and time are greyed out and struck through, as in the example I gave above. Would you mind having another crack at it? I'd appreciate it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Valdez - Hung's Page

Hi WikiLeon, we would like to further explain and expand the reasons why we consider this page should not be deleted from Wikipedia. Is there a better way we can communicate with you, for example via telephone call if possible? Kindly advice your contact no. to our email address at rare.remarkable@LXIII.COM

Thank you and we look forward to hear from you soon. 202.175.98.170 (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Yvonne[reply]