User talk:LeeHunter/Archive01

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between August 2004 and September 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:LeeHunter/Archive02. Thank you. Lee Hunter 13:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 19:33, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Terengganu, Malaysia on Opentask

User:LeeHunter,

Thanks for fixing up the link on Opentask to Terengganu, Malaysia. Good call. :)

-- PFHLai 22:37, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to Swanscombe, but frankly I cant see what your problem is with the original content? - Perhaps you could explain your reasoning concerning edits to date, I certainly do not think you have added any useful contribution to the page, but will study your reasoning if you should like to clarify your problem on my talk page---? Faedra 12:46, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC) All the best.

Please note that articles not written in English do not merit a {{delete}} tag, but instead the {{notenglish}} tag, which adds a notice explaining that the article has a two-week period for someone to translate it before it is listed for deletion. That is, of course, unless you can read it and discern that it is patent nonsense. Thanks. Livajo 21:25, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting and correcting my spelling error at embroidery stitch. Next time i'll use a dictionary bevore creating articles. I promise. Lady Tenar 14:51, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing Alejandro Finisterre Cheers!

When you list something for deletion, in addition to {{subst:vfd}} and making the discussion page, you also have to edit the vfd page to include it on the date section appropriately. See the procedure at the bottom of the vfd page. -Vina 08:18, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Just wanted to thank you for cleaning up David Milgaard, I'm definitely a writer not an editor, and I can never understand those people who go through cleaning up articles others have written, though I greatly appreciate it. ta. --Sherurcij 15:45, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy

Although I agree the Crimson Crush-related articles you listed for speedy deletion are clearly not notable, that is not a criterion for deletion. You should probably list them on VfD instead, or hope that some other admin is willing to bend the rules... — David Remahl 16:08, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In this case the student is posting articles about himself and all his schoolmates. Allowing these articles to go to VfD would simply clog an already overloaded process for no good reason other than to 'follow the rules'. Your welcome to revert them if you like. --LeeHunter 16:17, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ignoring the rules will only make the speedy deletion facility even more arbitrary. VfD is terribly overloaded, but that is not an excuse to misuse speedy deletions. Wikipedia:Managed deletion is one proposal. At this point I'll just leave them be, I won't delete them but I don't care enough to list them on VfD either.. — David Remahl 16:30, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia is becoming extremely popular in schools - as a result we risk becoming overwhelmed by hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of non-encyclopedic pages. Leaving them up for weeks (for their friends to admire) while they work their way through a cumbersome VfD process makes no sense to me at all. They obviously don't belong, so I don't see that removing them quickly is at all arbitrary. The lesser(much lesser) of two evils, in my opinion. If the information was really so important it will find its way back. --LeeHunter 16:43, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You should be making this point on Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion or in the Managed deletion discussion.
I can't see the harm in having these pages up for a few weeks, really...Hopefully it will demonstrate to a whole high school that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. That means potentially thousands of contributors and future Wikipedians. — David Remahl 17:53, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that those articles are not proper speedy deletion candidates. They do seem to be very viable VfD candidates, however, because of nonnotability. Please relist them there. Thanks! Postdlf 18:07, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
OK, I give up. Democracy wins. I've gone through the astonishingly tedious and convoluted vfd process to list all five pages. Five down. 100,000 to go.--LeeHunter 21:10, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Foreign language

Please, when you tag an article as {{notenglish}}, also leave a note on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. I found your tagging of Kartal anadolu imam hatip lisesi by way of categories, but it could have languished a long time if I didn't happen to look at a category page. And thanks for tagging it. - Jmabel 03:10, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Catechin

Thanks for finding Flavonoid -- I couldn't for the life of me figure out why bioflavonoid wasn't there. Thanks for beating me to the redirect, too. (I prolly woulda found it after dinner. But still.) --jpgordon {gab} 23:36, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rishyasringa

Thanks for making that article understandable and meaningful! Imc 21:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Gotem Article

Could you please state if you would like to have the article kept (by saying Keep) or deleted (by saying Delete). Thanks A lot bakuzjw (aka 578) 01:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


While your little note is touching, do note that the current count is 1 keep and 1 delete. I was not an author of the article, i merely deleted vandalism.

bakuzjw (aka 578) 01:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Incomplete VFD

Ack, thank you for finishing up with the Boner Essay thing for me. I got sidetracked in the middle of it, and when I came back to that window I got an edit conflict. DS 21:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Thank you.

I hope the article on Tobias Jones goes a long way thank you again.

--Relaxation 22:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

image problem

i have fixed the image on commons shows it right but here seems to keep showing the old one.. does it show it right on your computer now? Ashley's stopper knot

image problem

i have fixed the image on commons shows it right but here seems to keep showing the old one.. does it show it right on your computer now? Ashley's stopper knot--LadyofHats 20:20, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your Large Scale Vandalization of My Editing Efforts

Please explain why you vandalized a large scale editing effort of mine, and others.

Examples:

  • remove redundant cats
  • removed alt med as article in sub cat
  • Removing alt med systems cat because it's redundant
  • removed tcm cat because it is in a sub
  • removed manipulative therapy cat because it is in a sub

Right, now I am planning on using your editing efforts as primary documentation as to why categories have not and will never replace project infoboxes.

I was thinking in terms of the following.

Body work (alternative medicine) is a case in point. Note alternative medicine is actually included in the title of this article. Yet, you wont find Body work (alternative medicine) in Category:Alternative medicine thanks to the editing efforts of User:LeeHunter, and others, because according to Lee Body work (alternative medicine) rightfully belongs only in Category:Manipulative therapy.

As an editor, I am familar with categories. There is a certain amount of logic to Lee's thought patterns. However, I am concerned only with the likely behavior of a new vistor to Wikipedia who is using the default user skin. That visitor is trying to find articles on alternative medicine. That new visitor is not likely to find Category:Alternative medicine. And if they manage to find it, they wont find Body work (alternative medicine) on the list, thanks to the editing of people like User:LeeHunter.

Now image trying to do something really imagative with categories like creating a category on the philosophy of alternative medicine in order to replace a List article. It would never work thanks to editors like User:LeeHunter. Categories will therefore NEVER replace the value of a good project infobox. A good project infobox will show several different classifications in one spot, that is clearly visible to new visitors. A category will NEVER show multiple classifications in one spot, thanks to editors like User:LeeHunter. John Gohde 21:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can see I was doing nothing more than making the alternative medicine area consistent with all the rest of WP. Before I started, virtually all the alternative medicine articles were found both under the main heading and under all the subheadings and the subheadings were not organized with any logic. Re. your point about the experience of a new user, I'm afraid I don't see how creating a logical organization would impair their ability to navigate categories. I agree that infoboxes are very useful and I would encourage their use. One of the important things about categories is that they are consistent across WP (which infoboxes are not) --Lee Hunter 23:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
People visit Wikipedia becuase they are seeking information. You are assuming that they already know the information that they are looking for. An expert in alternative medicine, could navigate categories assuming that they could figure out what that category hyperlink on the very bottom of the page was supposed to be for. But, I believe that somebody who knew nothing about alternative medicine could not and more importantly would not bother to navigate through the maze of sub-categories. John Gohde 23:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Something you might want to look at

The article Clitoris envy, on which you made, i believe, the most useful edit, has been catapulted to the Votes for deletion. I am close to being the only one now that does not favour an eradication of the article. If you wish to give your opinion, I invite you to do so. --Liberlogos 05:35, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deletion

The user in question was clearly trolling for responses in order to fix several votes in his favor, a practice which is not permitted since it unfairly skews VFD votes - these are not meant to be political. The m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians is a nice central location where GRider can point interested users to certain votes. Feel free to put a note on the top of your talk page if you don't want anyone to touch it. — Dan | Talk 05:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Homeopathy

That version was Art Carlson's version, which I was happy to leave. His wording was a compromise, but you reverted it back to your uncompromised version. Jooler 22:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\talk

The Party's Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies

I don't know if you're watching the page, and have no interest in duking it out myself, but I thought you might like to know that the original author has reverted your trimming of this article. —Korath (Talk) 02:47, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Lee -- I'm the 'original author.' I did not 'revert,' in fact -- I wrote an encyclopedia-style intro, the absence of which I took to be the problem expressed the first time. Your claim that the synopsis is unreadable and doesn't convey what the book covers and describe its principal conclusions is a curious one; certainly it would be easy to rebut. Perhaps a closer look will bring you to change your mind. Or perhaps you might like to ask some others whether they agree, or perhaps you might care to improve it. All best. Mark K. Jensen 00:36, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Jump Around song

I really did watch an episode of Simpsons that had a song with the beat of Jump Around, and whatever the name of that song is; I think it is worth mentioning as a reference to the song in the article.

Will you tell me the name of another song that has the beat of Jump Around? If you don't know the name of it, ask other pals of yours.

There was a question in the Talk:Jump Around article that no Wikipedian has answered. --TheSamurai 02:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Geni RFC

LeeHunter, I have advised Geni that unless he makes an effort to more constructively contribute to the homeopathy article, I'm going to issue an RFC on him. Most recently, I made an effort to rewrite the introduction to be more neutral, and he simply reverted to the earlier, biased version. --Leifern 12:57, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for Moving the Bari Article

In reference to your note: The following text was on the category page. I've moved it here because it obviously didn't belong there, but I don't know whether it should be its own article. --Lee Hunter 00:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ElKabong

Our foul-nouthed and intemperate little friend made a few typical edits, and then suddenly stopped. I suspect that his mummy found him using the computer, and he's probably been sent to bed without any supper (and a smacked bottom). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lugon

Lugon has left a comment in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lugon#avian_influenza - sorry I don't know how to use this way of communication. Thanks! Lucas Gonzalez

war on terrorism edits

you introduced substantial pov into the article while leaving the edit comment 'cleanup'. i disagree with your edits and i am very tempted to revert them. perhaps you could go over what you changed, and try just a little harder to be neutral on the subject. as it stands, you've taken an already dubious article and slanted it even more in whichever direction you felt best suited your agenda.

if you can't be neutral, or attempt to be so, edit a less controversial article.

lastly, if you are going to address or change npov stances in an article, do the rest of us a favor and leave a meaningful editcomment to that effect. Avriette 01:09, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted part of your last edit. Again, you have not provided a clear edit summary for what you have done. Secondly, you have made a statement about "most interrogation experts believe"... You are not an interrogation expert. If you have read a text which actually states this and you would like to cite it, please do so. Otherwise, this is conjecture, POV, and opinion. You are attempting to promote a point of view with your edits to this article, and it is childish for somebody who claims to be an editor. As I suggested above, consider editing something less controversial if you can't keep your own agenda out of it. And, again, please make sure your edit summary indicates what you did. If you intend to fix some minor wording, and to also add a paragraph about the color of the sky, please do so in two edits with two appropriate edit comments so the rest of us can track the progress of the document, and also easily revert things when something happens. xoxo Avriette 01:13, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Gitmo

You mentioned that:

I haven't been following this article all that closely but I haven't seen any objections to mentioning the allegations that detainees defaced Korans.

It's been such a long discussion that it would have been easy to miss these comments:

  1. This article is about ... Quran desecration by US guards at Gitmo .... Abuse by random Muslims of their own Qurans is not of any interest to anyone. (csloat)
  2. The article ... will continue to be a joke while Ed maintains this fiction that we must balance claims of quran abuse by guards ... with claims of quran abuse by prisoners (csloat)
  3. even if the claims of Qur'an abuse by prisoners were as substantial as the claims of the guards abusing the Qur'an, it is not the cause nor an integral component of the controversy that exists today which is why this page was created in the first place. If a prisoner flushes his own Qur'an down the toilet, its not newsworthy (kizzle)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:09, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Karl Scherer

Karl Scherer was created by User:68.160.162.88 (contributions: [1]), who has no other contributions. Using a simplified version of the text that Karl Scherer added (as User:202.37.72.100 at this edit) to Turing Machine. It is consequently likely that User:68.160.162.88 is Karl Scherer, in the "vanity page" ilk.

The connection between User:202.37.72.100 and Karl Scherer is the highly obvious "zillions games as external links" added in the same edit to Turing Machine, as User:Karlscherer3 is extremely fond of doing.

Consequently, I would like to ask you to reconsider your vote to keep the page in consideration of this. ~~~~ 22:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you please ...

... take a look at my work here, and perhaps add it to your watchlist? Many thanks, BrandonYusufToropov 13:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update. User:Carbonite instantly reverted. BrandonYusufToropov 13:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad

Inasmuch as I respect your opinion on such matters, can you please take a look at the editor's poll I posted at the Jihad talk page here? BrandonYusufToropov 16:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


SERE

Having graduated from the school, I think I might know a little about it. Most of the articles on the web are full of crap; mere speculation and misinformation. So maybe you shouldn't post everything you see on google.-Tsalagi

The act that it is sensitive, is quite relevant. Posting information about it that is not open source is illegal. AS far as wiping it, I did so while I was lookingfor something unclassified on the web that was factual enough to post, which I did.

Once again, I've deleted the parts that are unmitigated opinion obtained from the new yorker, and posted actual facts taken from official open source sites. Please don't "vandalize" my work by replacing it with nonfactual rumor.

Request for Mediation

Lee, I've begun a mediation request, Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation, regarding the page Human Rights in the United States. I'm doubtful that any consensus regarding the definition of human rights can be made between us, though I do appreciate your discussion and your civility. Barneygumble 15:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Both parties have now agreed to enter into the mediation process. Please suspend editing of Human Rights in the United States for a day or so to allow me to review your positions. Most of the early mediation will take place through e-mail.Please send me an e-mail by going to my user page and using the e-mail this user option on the sidebar. In the e-mail please include a brief stament of your postion; the other side will never see it so please be open about how you are willing to compromise and your grievances with the other party, and what you are willing to do and would like to see them do to better work together. The public nature of wikipedia often makes users more guarded about what they post, by using e-mails you will be gaining the ability to speak candidly abut your problem without fear of reprisal.

All of these e-mails are confidential; please do not share e-mails with others or post them in thier entirity or in excerpts on wikipedia. I may make suggestions from time to time, to see what is or is not possible please do not assume that these suggestions reflect the other sides position—I am not an emissary—we are merely temporarily shifting communication to a medium where mistakes may be intercepted or at least not be part of a permanent record. Thanks. -JCarriker 00:21, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley

As administrator Ed Poor has recommended, I have now created a new article on Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley. As it is a fact that these claims exist, I think it is a fair compromise to exclude this material from the main article and put it in this new article. Onefortyone 16:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of the three revert rule

LeeHunter -- I have blocked you for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule on Homeopathy. Please take this time to cool off, and when the block is expired try to discuss issues under contention instead of edit warring. Thanks. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LeeHunter/Archive01&oldid=1085965894"