User talk:Levineps

This user is one of the 800 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Welcome!

Hello, Levineps, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 01:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Thanks! jareha 06:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The correct syntax is {{expand}}. utcursch | talk 06:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did quite a bit of copyedit/cleanup work on the college football on television article and you simply reverted it. If there is actual content to add, please add it. But creating empty sections and linking non-existent articles does not improve Wikipedia. jareha 05:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits here weren't really appropriate since your additions weren't actually 'loopholes' so much as ways of breaking the law and getting away with it, which isn't really relevant to the article. --InShaneee 20:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said, that info doesn't belong in the article. Please refrain from re-adding it. --InShaneee 21:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged that into the page on Keith Jackson; his bio article is not particularly large, so there doens't seem to be any need for a seperate page. If you disagree, please drop me a note on my talk page, so we can discuss it. Thanks for adding that info, though; it's nice to have. (and the mention of your souces is good, too.) JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Will you please refrain from adding these inappropriate grouping to articles. Your ones on Michael Jordan have now been reverted at least twice. Smaller articles do not need this kind of grouping and larger ones like the Jordan article, do not need that much subgrouping. In the end you are only ruining the flow of many articles and in the cases of smaller ones, they have become unreadable. -Thebdj 16:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit to Bill Clinton; Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Levineps, Sometimes you can have too many section headings. We don't need a separate header for every paragraph - this is why I've removed the headers you added to Bill Clinton. Please try to section articles into broad topics, as opposed to individual paragraphs. Thank you. Rhobite 02:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're making major edits to an article, such as Bill Clinton, it's always better to discuss your edits beforehand on the talk page. Could you please post a message on Talk:Bill Clinton explaining why you are trying to split the article? I'm not sure that this needs to be done, and I don't think "Bill Clinton's Post-Presidency" and "Clinton's Foreign Policy" are the best names for these pages. Rhobite 03:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. RexNL 22:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not split or merge a page without making an edit summary indicating that you did so. The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Without entering a summary such as "spliting content from Super Bowl XL", it looks like you wrote the entire Reaction to Officiating in Super Bowl XL article yourself. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Infamous moments in Saturday Night Live history, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infamous moments in Saturday Night Live history and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on List of United States Democratic Party Superdelegates(By Candidate), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. About a week ago, I was going to tag it for speedy deletion. Now it looks great. Basketball110 _{vandalise me} 16:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the page United States election night television coverage‎ on my watchlist, and noticed your edit summary of one of your edits "no anon is going to delete this." I don't think it matters who deletes it. I think it's not a bad page, and disagree with his/her take on it. I've put a notice on his/her talk page, but he/she has not responded. Regards, Basketball110 _{vandalise me} 22:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you delete the prod template? Basketball110 ^{proof that this user is crazy} 05:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you at all making plans to show me that you are alive? Basketball110 _{proof that this user is crazy} 23:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the page. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 19:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article United States election night television coverage, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article List of 2008 United States Democratic Party superdelegates by endorsement, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on College Basketball on Television requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This subject is best covered in the individual netowrk and/or conference aticles. It does not merit its own article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just wanted to tell you what a nice job you have done fixing up the article recently. All of your info has sources and I find it interesting to know the broadcasters of the draft. Great job! Tigersfan1992^{How you doing?} 20:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Jccort (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You seem to be changing all the McCain articles under the edit subject "spacing". If you are changing two spaces after sentences to one (what it seems like), please be advised those two spaces are intentional. They are permitted by the MoS and I use them to better spot where sentences begin when I am in edit mode, since these articles have many inline footnotes and can be hard to follow when looking at the source. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Football Night in America worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TestEditBot (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Special-T (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Presidential Debates on Television requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ./zro (⠠⠵) 23:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated United States election night television coverage, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States election night television coverage. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? « Diligent Terrier [talk] 00:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change dates on templates, such as fact templates. These dates are added at the time the templates are added so as to give some sort of chronology as to their placement and an indication of how long they have been there. I notice you've been making a lot of these formatting-type edits and I request that you change these dates back to the original ones. Thank you, NcSchu_(Talk) 18:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised again that double spaces after periods are in some articles intentionally, to aid in editing, and are permitted by the MoS. Our readers see no difference in the actual article they view. Your changing these to single spaces just makes for editing churn for no benefit. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change 2000 census figures on articles without a very good reason (edit summary). This may be construed as vandalism. A footnote should probably be used.Student7 (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the trivial edits, especially those that squeeze out the spaces that make it easier to edit articles. Dicklyon (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add a blow-by-blow of tonight's debate to this article. Everything we add needs to be reliably sourced and not our own accounting of what we ourselves saw on TV (which would be original research). Thank you! --guyzero | talk 02:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above. I actually dropped this on your talk page earlier (as you may have noticed from the spurious "new messages"), but I backed up because I misinterpreted one of your edits as not doing this. But now I look again and see that you are still doing this. This task is pointless. Double spaces in articles are for the editors' benefit, since readers see no difference. If the main editors to an article prefer to use double spaces (such as myself), let them; by going around changing the style, you're only annoying editors. This would be a really lame thing to go to administrators over, so please just stop. SnowFire (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you continue to remove double spaces completely pointlessly, nor respond. For the last time: both styles are allowed by the MOS. It's just like British vs. American English. This is about the lamest reason to be blocked ever, but repeated and constant breach of the MOS has gotten people blocked before for those who spent all their time changing British->American or vice versa. Spacing is an even sillier issue than that. I'd recommend some kind of dispute resolution, except that there is no dispute; editors are not allowed to unilaterally switch optional style points in every article like reference styles, dialects, or spacing. Are you at all interested in responding? If you continue to make these utterly pointless and actually counterproductive edits, then I'll bring the issue up on the Administrator's noticeboard next. Which would be ridiculous for such a minor issue. Please stop. SnowFire (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. What's more, many of your other spacing edits, such as ones in "External links" sections that change "* [http://..." to "*[http://...", are completely pointless too. The end result looks no different to the reader either way. And the churn in the articles due to these edits makes doing version differences to find real content changes that much more difficult, because we have to read through and disregard your stuff. Surely there is something more important you can do on this project than this! Wasted Time R (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to echo what these other editors were saying. I spent a good 5 minutes looking at Coach (baseball) trying to figure out what you "cleaned up" until I realized that it was just spacing changes that made no visual impact on the web site... I'm not sure what the point was. I whole heartedly welcome anyone who can write better than me or who has better information than me to come in and edit artciles I put a fair ammount of work into, especially to fix my typos. But just changing non-end user spacing? Twice? I don't get it buddy... Coastalsteve984 (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Texas A&M Aggies football. Thank you. Please use an edit summary for the benefit of other editors, thanks. EagleAg04 (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Ballot Bowl 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 about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, 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 {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 20:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You got this punctuation fixes wrong in John McCain:

...to describe McCain as "conservative" but not "a conservative," meaning that while McCain usually...

The might be more cases like that. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please study WP:PUNCT. Not all punctuation goes inside quotes! Only when the sense of the punctuation was part of the original quotation. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your change to a section heading in the above article, please read WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:PROFANITY. Thank you! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have recommended moving (renaming) the Bear Bryant article to Paul Bryant, since this is an encyclopedic site it seems to me that Coach Bryant's real name would be more appropriate. I would appreciate it though, since you are a regular editor of the article, to include your opinion in the (discussion) of the pending move. Thanks! Rtr10 (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		In appreciation of the outstanding cleanup work you've done on countless articles. Well done! JayJasper (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ran across this edit[[1] of yours, which resulted in deleting relevant, referenced material which was not previously included in Presidency of Gerald Ford. I have re-inserted a portion[2]. This move also necessitated corrections of other articles that had linked to it. I also note from a cursory check, that other sections in the former are similarly not now included in the latter (e.g. #Accession).

No offense intended, but since this seems to be something you are working on recently, I would like to suggest that you take additional care to prevent loss of material that has met consensus prior to the page move. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please state your reasons for re-adding the "notable" games to the Talk:2008 NCAA Division I FBS football season. Also, try to keep your edit comments productive, unlike here and here. — X96lee15 (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please weigh in on the talk page. Restoring the section violates WP:OR. I'm willing to add some games, but not without some sort of standard or external source. — X96lee15 (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Grsz¹¹ 22:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments on 2008 NCAA Division I FBS football season: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Grsz¹¹ 05:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the meaning of this edit is, but this is completely incorrect for a few reasons. What Wikipedia policy are you attempting to follow here?

There are no references, so the section is completely blank. What's the point?--Levineps (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We add references to biographies of living people. They're required. That is the point. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 18:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a few references might be nice, so it's not just there for decorations--Levineps (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Democratic National Convention on Television, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic National Convention on Television. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. . I also nominated Republican National Convention on Television for deletion. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been noticing that you've been doing that type of stuff to a lot of articles concerning lists of sports event broadcasters. The World Series has been on television since the 1940s and on the radio since the 1920s. It would be awfully impractical and neglectful (in my estimation) to simply do a "one and done" format with the editing. Many, many announcers have covered the World Series multiple times (e.g. Curt Gowdy, Vin Scully, Tim McCarver, Joe Garagiola, Mel Allen, etc.). Tim McCarver for instance, has called World Series games for three different networks (ABC, CBS, and FOX) since 1985. So by your logic, Tim McCarver's name should only be linked for the 1985 series. TMC1982 (talk) 12:11 a.m., 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your heading changes as you made almost all the headings in the entire article subheads of a single head. Seems pointless and confusing. Was there a reason? Happy Chanukah Bellagio99 (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for cleaning up my additions to "United States presidential election, 2008" (popular votes for 3rd parties). I'd like to understand what needed cleanup, and how I can improve future additions. Unfortunately, the "differences" page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_election,_2008&curid=406859&diff=260998847&oldid=260988541 ) is not very enlightening; it shows seemingly-similar text, but with different coloring (which might be an irrelevant artifact of the display), but leaves me ignorant of what I should have done differently. e.g.

-

• Alan Keyes (America's Independent Party) received 47,768 votes. He was listed in three states: Colorado and Florida, plus California (listed as "American Independent"), and also had write-in status in Kentucky, Ohio, Texas, and Utah

+

• Alan Keyes (America's Independent Party) received 47,768 votes. He was listed in three states: Colorado and Florida, plus California (listed as "American Independent"), and also had write-in status in Kentucky, Ohio, Texas, and Utah.

Aside from the space after the asterisk and some spaces between lines (as well as a few rewordings), I cannot tell what the differences are.

I would very much appreciate some guidance, for the purpose of improving my future contributions to Wikipedia. Thanks in advance for any advice you can send me. (Unfortunately, I will probably be unable to respond promptly, since I will be out of the country during the next week or two. So please do not interpret my initial silence as a lack of gratitude for your kind assistance.)

BAM ("tripodics") (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC) P.S. I was not not sure whether a message like this ought to be sent via your talk page or via email (or via some other method). Advice on that would also be welcome. BAM ("tripodics") (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to me to be an unnecessary edit to make, generally former presidents are referred as president even after they are out of office especially when talking about administrative actions taken when they were still in office, just look at the Stephen Breyer article for an example where it reads that he was Appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton it would be awkward for it to read the then-President Bill Clinton, I realized that President Bush is very unpopular and pointing out that he is no longer the president is a joy to those who despise him and his presidency however it doesn't seem like it should be something used in an encyclopedia.68.115.186.143 (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this poster, you've made a slew of bad edits in this regard. In historical writing, it's always assumed that the position given for someone is their position at the time being described, not the time the reader is reading it. The "then-" form is not needed. Nobody writes, "In 1862, then-President Lincoln freed the slaves." They just write, "In 1862, President Lincoln freed the slaves." It's equally unnecessary to write, as you did here, "In 2007, then-President George W. Bush appointed Dole ..." In at least one case, you've made things even worse: this edit adding a "former" ended up saying "in August 2004 ... He described former President Bush's policy regarding ..." This makes it sound like Bush 41 is being referenced, when it's really Bush 43. Please consider going back and undoing all of these inappropriate usages. Thank you. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Arbcom recently issued an injunction against further repeated date delinking, pending their decided what to do with dates. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Temporary injunction. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Political positions of Nancy Pelosi, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political positions of Nancy Pelosi. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Loonymonkey (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on this page, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because the article is a page created primarily to disparage its subject or a biography of a living person that is controversial in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral point of view version in the history to revert to. (CSD G10).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting the article, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate the article itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please be careful not to introduce links to Georgia, as you did in this edit [3]. Georgia is a disambiguation page and should not be linked to. The American state is at Georgia (U.S. state). DuncanHill (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Interconference Rivalries in the National Football League, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

per WP:TRIVIA

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. -Zeus-^u_c 02:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Intraconference rivalries in the National Football Conference, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

per WP:TRIVIA

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. -Zeus-^u_c 15:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lev. Hey, looking at this edit, I wanted to ask you, do you really think that a section header in a stub of this length is necessary? I actually don't mind it; it just seems superfluous. I don't care, either way, and will not be reverting it. I just sometimes can't help writing down my random thoughts, and this one ended up on your talk page. Unschool 17:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the whole article is a biography so adding a "Biography" heading is redundant, IMHO. – ukexpat (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a user who is apparently new to our efforts on this article, you have apparently unilaterally opted to move almost all of the legal and financial troubles content, including the portions which are current events and ongoing, into a sub-article. I feel that move is inappropriate. I would agree that some of the many details could be moved if we don't lose the big picture in the primary article, but what has been done as of now is unacceptable. I will wait a few hours to see comments on the article talk page and give you a chance to respond and/or cleanup and restore the main points before proceeding to work on it myself. Vaoverland (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you and I are thinking the same thing with regard to Kentucky. A while back, I tried to go back and source the information that was there to get the article up to GA, but this just resulted in a mammoth article that was still nowhere near GA. At the time, my motivation was to make Kentucky the first GA state article. Well, we've missed that, but the benefit is that we now have several models to follow (FAs: Minnesota and Oklahoma; GAs: Pennsylvania, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas). The more I think about it, the more I believe getting this article to GA or FA is going to require creating an alternate version (at say, User:Levineps/Kentucky or User:Acdixon/Kentucky), then trying to get a consensus to replace the existing article with the new one. If you're up for trying this, I could probably pull myself away from improving Kentucky governor articles long enough to give it a shot. Let me know what you think. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You recently created the Energy usage in California, most likely by moving the "Energy" section from the California page to that one (perhaps adding a little more information). Do you really think it is wise to leave a blank section in the California page? All it says right now is the templated "See the main article in Energy usage in California" or something similar. Killiondude (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article American Idol rules, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

WP:NOT a how-to guide, and this is probably some sort of copyright violation.

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. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up. For this edit, all of them were already endashes except one. Endashes can be inserted without using the long coding. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Championship Week requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me other coaches who have forked career records or a category with coaching records?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you have messed up a lot of links. Please check your work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Culture of Buffalo, New York, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culture of Buffalo, New York. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Powers ^T 23:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several people have complained about your splitting of articles. Please read Wikipedia:Splitting and follow the proper procedure. Discuss things before you do it and make sure you leave an adequate summary in the parent article as well as the link pointing to the split content. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed you do a lot of constructive editorial work. However, you repeatedly split articles unnecessarily and leave them in unfinished split state. I have contacted you to discuss you split of John Beilein, but you have not returned my communication. Baseball player career statistics are not normally split like you have split Barry Bonds. Coaching careers are not normally split either.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded; I've seen a couple you have split without any need; you haven't lengthened them, they aren't long enough to justify their own article and you've just copy-pasted the text without any thought. Please stop doing it. Ironholds (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't care about basketball. I like football and baseball though (well the Detroit / Michigan teams).TomCat4680 (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article you created International reaction to the Inauguration of Barack Obama has been nominated for deletion. Please see the discussion about unwanted splitting at Talk:Inauguration_of_Barack_Obama#New_articles.3F and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 9. Thanks. Aaron charles (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Coaching record of John Beilein, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coaching record of John Beilein. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is up for deletion. --Tom 17:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the MOS says, but (as someone has already told you) date delinking is currently the subject of a temporary injunction, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Temporary injunction. The injunction basically means "don't do it". You should stop. Mr Stephen (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see this isn't a new problem to this page. Your splitting out of the filmography portion of Leonardo DiCaprio was done without even an edit summary in explanation, much less first broaching it on the talk page to gauge editor opinion on doing so. The article was 38kb prior to this and the filmography took up only 6kb. The article is not long enough to warrant splitting part of it off. Also, splitting it in that manner removes the history for the contributions leading to the filmography, a great deal of which I added. This is done without consensus and is not, as you've been told multiple times over last couple of months, being done without benefit of editor input. Please stop splitting article content outside of process and consensus. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, your re-addition of the == Biography == heading to this article was contrary to guidelines, and your filmography was mis-spelled, and I have had to delete it as an implausible redirect. All in all, you seem to plough your own furrow here regardless of policy, guidelines, or the input of other editors, and do not communicate effectively. You create work for others, especially Admins, who have to clean up after you. This must stop as it is too disruptive. If it does not, I'm afraid your editing days here are over, and you make take this as a final warning. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 17:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is precedence for a seperate page, Robert Redford filmography. Sorry for the misspelling though.--Levineps (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but the difference is that Robert Redford's article is long enough to justify separating the filmography; Leonardo DiCaprio's isn't, yet. When it is, it can be split following a proposal on the Talk page. --Rodhullandemu 18:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that article would have been shorter, but good try.--Levineps (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that you have been warned for the last time, and if you split an article without consulting the talk page you will be blocked? --Moni3 (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, is that a threat?--Levineps (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems more like a promise. Killiondude (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a question. I cannot tell if you understand that you will be blocked if you split another article without consulting the talk page first. Avruch warned you several threads up there, and Rodhullemu made it fairly clear as I read it, but your lack of response, then type of response to this makes me think you may not be able to understand what is being said to you. --Moni3 (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't take wikipedia as seriously as some of you, I guess I must have more of a life. But anyways, I think I have made many productive contributions to wikipedia, so I would hate to be blocked, but I would not shed a tear over it.--Levineps (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]