User talk:wikiLeon/Archive01


Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #185

File:Exquisite-kmenu b.png

Talk Archive #1

Home Talk Wikipedians Userboxes Ribbons Awards Guide Tasks

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between Feb. 12 and Sep. 23 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to User Talk:Lbmixpro/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.

Minish Cap music

Hello. I have at some point contributed about 50% of the current MInish Cap article. I am the one who added the comment about Minish CAp's music being very similar to that of WW. You removed that comment because both scores where composed before The Wind Waker. Can you please provide proof/sources of that claim? I dare say I have some knowledge of the Zelda series and I do not know in which other game these melodies appeared before THe WInd Waker. Phils 18:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Go check out your talk page
- Correct. Thanks. Phils 10:25, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Iglesia Ni Cristo

You seem to have done a great job taking this article toward NPOV. Thanks. Rlquall 22:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome. As a former member, I want to make sure that both sides get equal treatment. Back when I was a member (circ. 1999), I was concerned about how the Internet had mostly negative bias against INC. --Lbmixpro 01:38, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
- I was behind most of the unproven statements in the article, and I apologize for my overzealousness. As one of your fellow INC exiles, I look forward to working with you so that people can know everything factual behind this group.--Onlytofind 07:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Yeah, I think you should keep tabs on your overzealousness a little more. --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)}

We need your help again, to mediate a POV dispute between Ealva, gcessor and me. Thanks much, --Onlytofind 05:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try my best to get this under control, starting with the vote. It's so sad how theres so much beef off the links section. But if you want to contact a sysop who knows about the INC article, there's Rlquall, who's already voted for 3 links. --LBMixPro ^{(Holla back!)} 07:12, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Instead of deleting, why not break down the discussion page into separate talk articles, as in the LDS? Makes it easier to trace the history. Ealva 21:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Ealva. Doing that's actually better than looking thru history pages. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)}
  - Emico has the nasty habit of trying to make articles which he contributes to conform to his POV, and he needs to stop doing this to the main INC, Bereans and two Manalo articles. He hasn't listened to reason from me and other users and I would appreciate it if you can talk to him. His userpage shows a complete disregard for Wikipedia rules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emico--Onlytofind 04:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've talked to Rlquall already, thanks again!--Onlytofind 08:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Your help in this matter is dearly appreciated. I would love to see you as a sysop for the Wikipedia. --Onlytofind 05:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

G4 (television)

Just wanted to give you a heads up: it's not actually protected. I would have done so myself, but I wasn't sure what your plan was. – Clockwork Soul 13:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problem: I locked it down for now. In the future, if you think a page needs protecting, you can post to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 13:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hello Lbmixpro. There's not much you can to do stop a vandal, except reporting him. Even with administrative power, it can sometimes be difficult. – Clockwork Soul 14:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- Do you have a problem with the facts about the trinity being decreed by the catholics? If you claim to be fair and unbiased, then show it. Emico 15:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - This has nothing to do with G4 television. In essence: I don't care, I reverted the article due to omitted category listings and references. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Emico for general issue and input.

WrestleMania X8 article

I can assure you the WM X8 article is not copied from another source; I wrote the vast majority of the current version with the help of various internet accounts of the event, but did not copy them. If you need further proof of this, try Googling content phrases from the article. If you find hits anywhere other than Wikipedia or one of its mirrors, I will copyedit that section. Plagiarism is a serious accusation and you should be sure you have proof before you make it.
I've noticed that you've made a number of contributions to pro wrestling articles. You should consider joining the Pro wrestling WikiProject. --Chrysaor 17:33, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the invite. I'll look into it when I had the time. I was looking at the tone of the article and lack of Wikification made me think the article was taken from another site. But still, the article needs Wikification, at least by linking the wrestlers' names and other subjects to their respected articles.

Trish Stratus

Why did you move this to her real name? I've moved it back. I'm no wrestling fan, but no one ever uses her real name. It makes no sense to put the article there. Adam Bishop 23:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I was following up on a suggestion, brought on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Naming conventions --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} 00:30, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Emico complaint- Arbitration has been started

Got your message. Darn! That'd be Onlytofind. I'm very happy to support this, but that kind of page needs a load of thought and ought to have been set up *before* posting the complaint. It's 1.30am here and I'm going away for few days tomorrow, so I can't deal with it now. RayGirvan 00:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, dealt with, as the page had been started. RayGirvan 03:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry that I started it late. I was just so angry over the fact that Emico is running amok inside the Wikipedia and peppering articles with personal opinion and bias.--Onlytofind 05:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please inform me as to when and if you will take the Emico complaint to the arbitration committee.--Onlytofind 20:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See your talk page. Between me tied up at the moment and emico's posts causing me so much wikistress, I would like for someone else to start a RfA on him. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)}
- I've given him a final chance before I take this to arbitration.--Onlytofind 03:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - I've started arbitration. Please leave your comment on him.--Onlytofind 03:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

His behavior has gotten even worse, check out the comment he left on Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo--Onlytofind 20:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will not take bait. Oh by the way, you may want to count the words on your RfA. I think it's limited to 500 words. --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} 21:56, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Vocal Profile

Sorry, I don't have one for Amy Lee. I was just splitting up an article that was little more than a list of artists with their profiles. --Xcali 00:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks anyways. --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} 02:23, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Could you please talk to Glenn about good faith?

Glenn has claimed that I added the Harper paper because I wanted to bypass the vote, which is something that I didn't intend on doing, and I deeply resent Glenn's claim. It seems that he thinks everything I do is in bad intentions and that I only want to belittle the INC, even though I recently wrote the section of evangelical activities and added another link putting bloc votes into context with other Philippine religions. I have the urge to revert the article, but I'm trying to solve this problem within Wikipedia rules, and I would appreciate your help if you could also talk to Glenn about assuming good faith, because I feel that he will revert everything I write since he thinks that I have a vendetta against the INC, which I do not.--Onlytofind 03:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I'll see how this plays out.--Onlytofind 21:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should I start a RfC on gcessor?

I would like to know if you think his behavior on the Iglesia ni Cristo page has warranted the creation of one.--Onlytofind 09:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's time for something like that. I think it's best to go through the other forms of dispute resolution before that. Maybe a 3rd party source. But we got enough of them, and possiblly sockpuppet accounts. I can't stand this. I'm already reverting articles from a User who is nothing but a number. BTW, my internet is currently screwed, so I won't be on as much as I want to.
- This is going too far with Glenn and Emico tagteaming to defend each other's bias and supporting each other's fabrications to make me look bad. I'm beginning not to care anymore myself, I'm trying to improve this article and these two constant complainers, who haven't done anything except revert and whine act like they own the Wikipedia. I hope everyone can see their conduct and draw their own opinions about the Iglesia ni Cristo. I need your help on this, I've tried working and compromising with them to no avail. Please tell me what you think I should do. I also changed the disclaimer to "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed."--Onlytofind 22:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why gcessor? I understand the RfC on Emico (then again, he's improving), but afaic, Onlytofind's issues with gcessor is mainly their different POVs. If gcessor's behavior necessitates an RfC, then Onlytofind should be RfC'ed too. But then again, Onlytofind is improving too. Ealva 23:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
LBMixPro, the correct answer is not not yet. It indicates you are already favoring Onlytofind's actions. I think a future sysop should always maintain that "stone-cold neutrality" just like a judge. Removing the "not yet" from your statement will do. Just a friendly reminder. Ealva 23:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wrote that reply a LONG time ago. The only reason I said "not yet" is for Onlytofind and you to go through ALL the other forms of resolution. If you both can't come to an agreement after all roads were tried (in which I highly doubt will happen in this case), then I can't stop him from seeking arbitration. In my opinion, if Onlytofind seeked out arbitration, the committee would likely turn him down, since it is basically a NPOV dispute. Emico's problems were much more serious than that. But I'm glad at the improvements in the attitudes of most people. Although I wish Onlytofind would watch his words, because calling people a hypocrate may be a personal attack, and other's conduct doesn't excuse one's conduct. I really don't want to get in the middle of a dispute here. Just make sure mutual consensus comes first with signifigant edits to the articles. --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} 08:25, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I'm also glad people are coming to their senses (which I hope will last). I'm sorry if my words sounded a bit stingy, but believe me that I don't have any other intention than giving a (somewhat unsolicited) friendly reminder. Ealva 17:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Requested Page protection

See Talk:Christina_Aguilera#Protection_request - Mgm|^(talk) 12:07, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Emico has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Emico/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 19:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Friendly Chat

Hi Leon, how are you doing? I believe that you have the makings of a good Administrator. How long have you been in Wiki and what are your main interests in Wiki? As you noticed in the Natalie and Nicole Albino and the Nina Sky articles. Everything written in the latter came form the article I originated, except for the first sentence. Anyway, I submitted the merge idea, so as to avoid lossing any of the edit history, to a fellow administrator User:Stormie, who quite an expert in the area. I'm glad that you have shown a great dedication to the project. Tony the Marine 05:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, man. I've been on WP since late last year. I don't know why I started. Mostly to share my knowlege of the world for it share. Also, like many people here, I wanna make sure the subjects of the articles are as informative and neutral as WP would let me. But it isn't easy, especially when you go edit one article, and feel it's all good with the others editing it, then edit another one to find it more difficult to deal with. How about you? How's your experiences with WP? --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} 07:11, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Man Leon, let me tell you, sometimes it can get a little frustrating. O.K.m so you get your vandal once in a while but, one of the things that really bugs me is when people that are totally clueless start writting or editing an article. That happened to me when my featured article was posted in the main page. All of a sudden you had a bunch of people who have no idea about the subject trying to rewrite it. Man, that was terrible because there is only so much that you can do. Anyway I hope you like what I posted on your user page and consider me your friend Tony the Marine 07:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I had already read your comment posted on the talk page and it seems to me to be a very fair one. Take care, Tony the Marine 19:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christina's Vocal Profile

About the vocal profile of Christina Aguilera. I noticed that you removed the profile due to the WP:CITE and WP:NOR rules. But while looking at the diff between Maxim's edit and your reversion, there was a URL citing where the profile came from. Is this source acceptable for the article? If not, why? --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} 08:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

It is all a matter of what is and is not a credible source of information. In the case of the Christina Aguilera article, her vocal profile and range is hotly contested, being constantly manipulated an octave or two every day. Generally speaking, how trustworthy is any information you get from GeoCities and how is it authoritative? Hall Monitor 15:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo V. Manalo

I think that allowing the article to continue without the section focusing on the controversy surrounding EVM will be a victory for some who would rather not see any criticism surrounding Mr Manalo. Nobody knows for certain (aside from the parties involved) the real truth, but I believe the newspaper links and section from Doronilla's book are still notable enough to include in the article. I felt personally that the last edit before the removal of the section was fair and neutral enough without favouring any side. If there is a way to include them without any further commentary or allegation, IMHO, that would be the best solution. --Ironbrew 22:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you. &mdashTheo (Talk) 00:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Emico →Raul654 20:06, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Candice

She was traded to RAW on August 22nd, no reason to change it back to Smackdown.

I didn't know that, since I live on the West Coast, and RAW doesn't start till another hour from now. But thanks for letting me know. BTW, your edit and my edit to the article was met with an edit conflict. --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} 03:20, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I think Emico's back

Check my comments at Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo#Deletion_of_the_Blog--Ironbrew 22:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emico doesn't take "no" for an answer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheoClarke#Emico.27s_at_it_again.--Ironbrew 08:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

160.36.8.109=Emico?

Judging from the first contributions, it seemed a little less sophisticated than what Emico usually does, but since that user added the template- I have my niggling suspicions that it's Emico trying to circumvent the ban once again? Does it seem to you like it's him or not?--Ironbrew 05:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lock the article?

Let's face it, Emico isn't gonna stop with the proxy h4x0r1ng and he doesn't care about the ban since he'll always try to find ways around it. You suggested locking the article a few days ago and I think it's a good idea.--Ironbrew 00:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we keep letting Emico do this...

If we legitimize additions from a blocked user, isn't that tantamount to making Wikipedia law and the decision of the Arbitration Council useless? Wikipedia already banned Emico for making POV edits, if we let him back in, he will do the same and we'd be back to Square One, IMHO. --Ironbrew 08:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see. One thing we can't do is assume every editor who edits the INC article is Emico. --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} 22:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clear, succinct analysis

I read through your response and I agree with as well as respect your decision. I have no personal vendetta against Emico (except for his continous accusation of the SP towards me- which can make one really angry, since he did use SP accounts) and if he is serious about mending his ways, I promise to respect his edits and start fresh if he enters mentorship with Theo. It seems that he also needs to learn that on WP, the cardinal rule is that your contributions will be edited mercilessly and at will.--Ironbrew 05:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:80.58.4.107#Sockpuppet accusation Your thoughts? I've notified all the sysops who were invloved in the INC article about this. I help edit his contributions, and I get a sockpuppet accusation in return. What's wrong here? --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} 09:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Emico sockpuppets

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I am not sure how you would like me to help. I like the idea of mentorship but just at present I am too busy elsewhere to do that effectively. How else my I contribute? —Theo (Talk) 09:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I really don't know. I've getting very close to giving up on the INC article alltogether. As I said earlier in my talk page, I try to be very lenient by editing Emico's posts instead of blatantly reverting them as I should, and all I get in return is a baseless sockpuppet accusation, which would make User:Marine_69-71 (a sysop who isn't involved with the INC article) seem like a sockpuppet of mine as well. I wish I could get the article locked for a while. I would like to get back to searching for sources for the article we have, instead of trying to end an edit-war between Ironbrew/Onlytofind(?) and Emico's sockpuppets. --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} 09:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/IMNOTEMICO Why would he be so obsessed with proving he's not Emico if he wasn't?--Ironbrew 18:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]