Hello. I did as you had suggested & began a new page for the singer, songwriter Howard Moss. In Europe the late American poet of this name is sadly not as well known as he is in the States. The singer Howard Moss (b 1975 Luton, Bedfordshire) has had chart hits & is recognised as a top performer who plays regularly to live audiences. He should definitely be included in Wikipedia.

The page I started was deleted. Can you please help?

Frank observer 15:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Have a look at similar articles, and use same type of layout. Also add a little more information, particularly regarding his notability and if possible with references. I'm sorry to say that I don't know anything about him. -- Leo Laursen TALK⋰ CONTRIBS 16:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Dear Leolaursen, I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. The matter of whether Finnland refers to Lapland or Finland is a tricky question. The two runestones that mention(ed) Finland are held to refer to Finland proper while Icelandic and Norwegian sources used the ethnonym Finn for Saamis. Frankly, I don't think that Viking Age Scandinavians cared very much for such distinctions, and Finn and Finnland was probably used indiscriminately to refer to Finno-Ugric tribes north and east of Scandinavia. So my answer is: I really don't know.-- Berig 14:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Maybe, you should discuss it with the Wikipedia specialist on Finno-Ugric pre-history: user:Drieakko.-- Berig 15:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Dear Leolaursen, thank you thank you thank you for fixing the bad code on the box for the photo of Jessica Williams. I spent way too much time and gave up...you saved the day. Thank you for the good deed. The world can use many more like you! Elaine, (ElaineCArc, elaine@elainearc.com) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ElaineCArc ( talk • contribs) 10:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply

No problem at all, only glad to help. — Leo Laursen ( T | C ) 10:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Guroadrunner. I reverted your edits in Robert Patrick. It looks alright in Firefox, so I guess the many edits today in the template Infobox actor did the trick. — Leo Laursen ( T | C ) 14:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply

:-) No worries on that - I found out that the actor/actress template infobox was the problem, I just did not know how to fix it. Guroadrunner 03:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't think it's vandalism. "Pillope" may be a common/local name for Sclerocarya birrea. However, as the article is copied from a copyrighted source, I have deleted it under WP:CSD#G12. Conscious 12:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Kizeme and Maai are both included in the parent Category:Zen, Zen being one of the schools of Buddhism. Pretty much, that was the only connection I saw, and it was on that basis that the banner was added. Presumably, the Zen connection is to Zen Buddhism. If the connection is not strong enough, however, then feel free to remove the banner. Certainly, I would have no objections to your doing so. However, if possible, maybe finding some category other than Category:Zen to place them in might also be a good idea, to prevent any further confusion. John Carter 13:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Ah, OK. I didn't notice that they are in Category:Zen. They probably shouldn't be, but that's another discussion. Thanks for the clarification. — Leo Laursen ( T | C ) 13:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC) reply

If you believe that they should not be included in that category, I would take your work on it. If you wish to do so, and feel doing so is justified, please feel free to remove both the category and banner. I don't know the subjects well enough to know one way or anotehr. John Carter 00:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I do use Firefox, but yes it probably is the ambox that is the problem. I will look up other similar templates and try to tweak it. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  15:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Just make sure that the errors aren't caused by some weird cache problem :) — Leo Laursen ( T | C ) 16:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Honestly, I don't know. When I saw the previous category (Historical Literature) I saw that it was a subcategory of Historical fiction, and thought "that's not right." and reversed it, without much thought. Wikipedia's categories are rather convoluted. I would almost think that we need a Wikiproject just for category management. Back on subject. Yes, I think that the two categories should be side by side in Category:History. Some of the material from historical fiction could be categorized as historical literature, thus filling that category.-- Vox Rationis ( Talk | contribs) 16:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

OK, I'll look into it soon. Thanks.— Leo Laursen ( T | C ) 21:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Regading dk:Hornulk, could you please move the article back to dk:Ulk, change the scientific name to Myoxocephalus scorpius, and remove the Figure (see Discussion of that page). Thanks. -- .g —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.61.200 ( talk) 00:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I copied the text back. I didn't remove the image, but added a caption that indicates that it is a Deepwater sculpin. –  Leo Laursen –  ☏  ⌘ 08:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your input on the mobile categories. If I could afford to spend more time on the task I'd try and pitch at wikipedia project mobile, but I only spend as much time on wikipedia as I can justify at work. I style myself a "Mobile Guru" at times though so I can justify a lot of short edits. For me that has meant categorizing, discussing, throwing up stubs when most needed. I enjoy stripping out advertising lingo too. Too many mobile companies are notable, but someone made the mistake of copying their marketing material and trying to make an article out of it. Anyway I commented on my own page to. I'm still not sure on wikipedia's etiqute for the discussion page. Mathiastck ( talk) 19:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I am not an expert, but I have way too much time on my hands at the moment (unemployed). My point of entry was categorizing articles. To come to a working solution, we need to step back a little, to get perspective on both regional and historical differences. After reading just a few articles I now think that it might be possible to clean the existing scheme to an adequate solution. I don't know the best place to discuss this, since it involves so many articles. For now I'll await more discussion. –  Leo Laursen –  ☏  ⌘ 19:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Regarding merging the Legion of Honor, certainly, that is fine with me.Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Billy_Hathorn"

Moved here from User page. Thanks –  Leo Laursen –  ☏  ⌘ 17:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

All right, if you wouldn't mind seeing if I nominated it right, I'd appreciate it. I tried, and I don't think I did it right. The reason I reverted the edits was that the edits gave people viewing the page the inpression that the article is of a legit item. I was also thinking of taking off the "Producer" and "Label" tags, as they aren't apprepriate either, but decided against it. Thanks, and feel free to say your piece about the article. Jay ( talk) 15:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Afd looks fine. It would help if You have some links that clearly shows that it is a fake. –  Leo Laursen –  ☏  ⌘ 16:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't know of any links, but I have a friend who bought it. As stated in the page's "Fake:" description, it's very obvious that it's a fake (still says "DVD" on it, as it borrows the FM Militia DVD's art, mislabels which artists are on which tracks, etc.). I'm a devout FM fan, and have had experience with bootlegs on several occasions before as well. If need be, I suppose I could ask my friend for pics and whatnot. Jay ( talk) 00:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Please do not move pages to nonsensical titles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to learn more about moving pages, please see the guidelines on this subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you.

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. Leo Laursen –  ☏  ⌘ 15:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You have redirected the above article which was originally about the Doors track by that name to the main article about the original work. You did not include an edit summary explaining your redirection. Would you please explain why you redirected the article? Do you think that it does not merit a separate article? Please in future be more informative in your edit summaries! Thank you. -- ukexpat ( talk) 18:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The track does not merit a separate article in my view, but the reason was that the article stated that it was a song written by Ray Manzarek. Further more, the original publication was on An American Prayer. I suggest that you write a section about the Doors version on Adagio in G minor. –  Leo Laursen –  ☏  ⌘ 18:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I originally put it up when I was testing the new "hidden category" feature but seemed to have forgot to remove it. It is no longer in the category. Vivio Testarossa ^{Talk Who} 05:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks, it's no big deal, it just pop'ed up on my todo-list. –  Leo Laursen –  ☏  ⌘ 10:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm aware of WP:HN, very much. I'd say it applies (because of the dab page and same name character). See Crash for example. Another would be Batman (disambiguation), though not sure if that's a good one (look for the "B.A.T.M.A.N." link there). And there's Viz. Does that help? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 15:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I disagree (obviously), for me it falls under WP:NAMB. FLASH needs a mention on Flash, but not a hatnote. I don't mind that we disagree, just wanted to explain since you asked. –  Leo Laursen –  ☏  ⌘ 16:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I use WP:NAMB for the most obvious cases (often when there's no redirect involved or when the hats are superfluous). I've tagged Flash for cleanup recently. You're right that FLASH needs mention on the dab, however, what of THE FLASH (also known by FLASH)? And spelling of FLASH is an all caps version of Flash. These things I feel should be mentioned. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 16:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Personally I would never look for THE FLASH, but rather The Flash, and based on the number of backlinks ( THE FLASH: 2, The Flash: +250), so would most people. I don't see any mentions of "all-caps" FLASH on Flash (comics). If it is commonly spelled in all caps the hatnote is justified, of course. –  Leo Laursen –  ☏  ⌘ 16:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

It's the same case as BATMAN; most would type "Batman" instead, however, the article makes no reference of the all caps. I think there used to be a hatlink on B.A.T.M.A.N. until it was removed for reasons similar to yours. Or so I read. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 17:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Atmakur (Warangal district), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Category:Mandals in Warangal district. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 14:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, Leolaursen. This is just a quick note to thank you for categorising the article Vladimír Šťastný. I often forget to add a category when creating an article-I appreciate you doing it. Thanks again. Puchiko ( Talk- email) 21:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello Leo. There's really no universal rule. Only a few of these articles were placed in incorrect categories. More often than not, the problem is that the categories used are too broad (say, Category:Albums, Category:German people) or that important categories have been left out (birth and death categories for people, year for albums, etc.). The idea is that you should treat the articles as uncategorized. If the categories placed by the bot are good, then of course they should remain. Pichpich ( talk) 14:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for fixing my problem. :) Abyssal leviathin ( talk) 09:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Leolaursen. I'm in two minds about this one, which you prod-ed a couple of days ago. I created it because I found a number of redlinks while working on redirecting links to the dab, which would seem to indicate a need for it. And looking at this [1] older version there may be value. Have a look at that one and see what you think, please? If that previous version doesn't sway you, then by all means put it out of its misery. 9Nak ( talk) 05:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply

A short introduction on the dap Stakeholder, with a reference to wiktionary wikt:stakeholder, should suffice. Further elaboration on the meaning belongs on wiktionary. You can remove the prod-template if you disagree, in which case somebody might take it to WP:AFD for a thorough debate. –  Leo Laursen –  ☏  ⌘ 08:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply

No, sounds like a good call. In this case some links should go to the dap, perhaps. Or I'll find another way around the problem. 9Nak ( talk) 13:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

The disambiguation looks difficult indeed. My take is that some should simply not be wiki-linked, others link to wikt:stakeholder and the rest to Stakeholder (disambiguation), a redirect to be created in order to distinguish them from accidental links in Special:WhatLinksHere/Stakeholder. –  Leo Laursen –  ☏  ⌘ 15:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I have no clue why you would flag my NavBar on my UserPage for deletion. Can you tell me why? CarverM ( talk) 03:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The NavBar belongs in your user space, e.g. User:CarverM/NavBar, not in the Template-name space. It was tagged as an uncategorized template, that's why I was there in the first place. –  Leo Laursen –  ☏  ⌘ 08:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the reply but I still do not understand the issue. (I'm still new to all of this.) On ones Userpage where people first come to learn about you or communicate to you, shouldn't there be some kind of navigation? CarverM ( talk) 04:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply

The problem is that your navigation bar is a template. It should be a sub page of your user page, which can be transcluded just as a template. So you should move the template, and then change {{CarverNavBar}} to e.g. {{User:CarverM/NavBar}} in your pages. Let me know if you need help in doing that. –  Leo Laursen –  ☏  ⌘ 07:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I think I see what you mean. I'll give it a try, then call for help :) CarverM ( talk) 22:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry to bother you but I guess I'm still unclear. My UserPage is not a template. So, couldn't I leave my UserPage as is? Then, on my subpages simply take out the template and replace it with the code used to make up the template? One would essentially see the same thing it would just not be a template. Thanks for the help. CarverM ( talk) 00:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply

It's no bother at all. You could can simply replace {{ CarverNavBar}} with {{subst:CarverNavBar}}, that will write the code unto the page, but then its more difficult to maintain. Moving or copying the template to a sub page is the easiest solution. The only special with templates is that you don't need to write template, but any page can be a template. I use User:Leolaursen/Boxes as a template on my user page. I can change it for you if you want, it really just a minor thing. –  Leo Laursen –  ☏  ⌘ 06:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply

If you wouldn't mind making the change that would be great. Then I could watch/learn from what you did. THANKS. CarverM ( talk) 01:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply

 Done Hope all went well. –  Leo Laursen –  ☏  ⌘ 12:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Now I understand! CarverM ( talk) 19:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I just declined the speedy deletion on Gravensteengroep as I couldn't find a previous AFD discussion on this article. I will gladly reconsider if you can point me in the right direction - perhaps it was discussed under a slightly different name? Kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 17:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply

It was deleted 4 March 2008 at 00:58 by Golbez under A7, under the same name. Restored same day and also marked as patrolled. Whether it was improved upon I can't tell. –  Leo Laursen –  ☏  ⌘ 17:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for pointing out that this article is uncategorized. I suppose he should probably be called 'politician, landowner and investor,' or something along those lines. Regards, MarmadukePercy ( talk) 17:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I searched for a landowner category, without result. Perhaps Category:Investors is apropriate. –  Leo Laursen –  ☏  ⌘ 17:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Okay, thanks for letting me know. He also fits into the politician category, having served in Parliament. Regards, MarmadukePercy ( talk) 19:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I was thinking of the article as being rather in the nature of a disambig, since there are different canons. Part of the problem is the inconsistent ways Western scholars use words. See the beginning of Buddhist texts for examples where they use the terms "scripture" & "canonical" in opposite senses. That is, each uses "scripture" to mean what the other means by "canonical". I think we need to consider carefully how we deal with this in a whole range of articles.

Mahayana Sutras is not really the place to deal with canons, since the sutras are only part of the canons.

I'm not sure whether there's an appropriate place for discussions on all these articles to be integrated. The Buddhism project is not very functional, & the religious texts one barely notices the existence of Buddhist texts. Peter jackson ( talk) 09:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I see Your point. Styling it as a disambig will in it self, show the ambiguity of the subject. I'll have a go at it. –  Leo Laursen –  ☏  ⌘ 09:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I did look at it, actually (I've got it watchlisted and looked at it when the uncat template went in), and there simply is no cat on WP that the template fits into properly. What I can tell you, though, is that religion is not the right category for it, and from the tone of your question (unless it's sarcasm), you seem to imply you don't know anything about Freemasonry. Why would you try to categorize something that you don't know about? MSJapan ( talk) 15:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply

It doesn't have to fit properly, it just have to be useful/helpful. By reverting you deny an honest attempt to categorize and at the same time request categorization, so why not simply find the best one in your opinion. I didn't feel like using "Category:Social science and society navbox templates" or any of its subcategories, so I chose "Category:Religion and belief navbox templates"; not implying other than that's where I would look.

Constructively, how about creating "Category:Organization navbox templates" under "Category:Social science and society navbox templates", and use that? –  Leo Laursen –  ☏  ⌘ 01:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply

In answer to the first question, there simply isn't a "best one" - Freemasonry isn't just any one of those categories, and to overcat the template is just as bad. To create an organizational navbox cat under social science would also lump in a whole lot of professional organizations as well, which is also not what Freemasonry is. It simply doesn't fit well in any category, and to give it one of its own is sort of meaningless. MSJapan ( talk) 01:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I believe you are putting too much importance in the categorization. The category should be general until there is a (foreseeable) need for more specialization. As the cagegorial tree grows, the categorization will become more and more specific. Please also remember that the template may be in more than one category; up to about four I'd say. Can we move further discussion to Template talk:Freemasonry2#Categorization? –  Leo Laursen –  ☏  ⌘ 10:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply

As of October 3, 2007, the California Court of Appeals and U.S Appeals Court have classified Freemasonry as a religion. As the original creator of Template:Freemasonry2 I say it should be "Category:Religion and belief navbox templates" Zef ( talk) 03:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, way to overgeneralize. Try reading the case document first. MSJapan ( talk) 05:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Discussion moved to Template talk:Freemasonry2 Zef ( talk) 12:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply

follow up question

A follow-up question... you say it isn't really a WikiProject template... Given that we have been using it on every article relating to the Freemasonry project, I think it is. But perhaps my concept of a project template and your's are different... so what would you call it? Blueboar ( talk) 22:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Given the text on the category page, it is a Wikiproject template, i assumed that it was only for Wikiproject name space templates.

It is the rule to find as specific categories as possible, and since Category:Navbox (navigational) templates is a sub cat of Wikiproject templates, that can be regarded as more specific. Then we are back to square one. –  Leo Laursen –  ☏  ⌘ 23:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Leolaursen, the problem is that I see this as simply another way of displaying the same information: that is "the references" from the main article. Putting this on the talk page does not seem like an appropriate place because I believe we want the content to remain focused on the bibliographical material. Though I believe the talk page has its merits, I see more merits to make a "seperate" article or "template". I've even categories the article according to other wikipedia precedents that also display bibliographical information. Perhaps changing the title from Venetian style shoe/references ( Venetian style shoe/References) to Bibliography for Venetian style shoe or Bibliography for Venetian style shoes would be more appropriate? -- CyclePat ( talk) 17:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm trying to look at this differently. Although I do see what you mean with things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada/References which tend to make one believe we shouldn't split references from the main article. Nevertheless, both formats are quite usefull, one is in alphabetical format which help to easully find the references in this havard style reference formated article and the other is by "material"... So I'm not sure if the example I just gave would apply to this. -- CyclePat ( talk) 17:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Hand Held Speech, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Justpassin ( talk) 18:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Leo -- Interested in your connection to Norvergence. I notice that you edited the Norvergence article in April in which a number of highly biased statements and emphases were included. Being fairly new to Wikipedia, perhaps I interpreted the tags incorrectly? As a former manager in the Norvergence organization and having followed very closely the media coverage and legal proceedings, I am confident in saying that much of the bias in this particular version of the article is very much unfounded (eg. It was a scam...)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinsprnt ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 4 June 2008

I have no connection to Norvergence. I just came upon the article because it was tagged as uncategorized. The text mentioned "alleged to be a pyramid scheme", and I felt that there was insufficient evidence to categorize it as Category:Finance fraud. I did a little clean up, and added some wikilinks and categories, nothing controversial. –  Leo Laursen –  ☏  ⌘ 08:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Edge STP, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Dgtsyb ( talk) 06:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Agreed. I still think that is has the potential to be an encyclopedic article, but as it stands, after 2 years, it is little more than an unsourced dictionary article and I have no time or interest in improving it. I have no object to it's deletion. – BozoTheScary ( talk) 03:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'm a developer of DrQueue. Would you please be so kind to rename the article ( [2]) from "Drqueue" to "DrQueue"?

Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.48.227 ( talk • contribs)

 Done :) –  Leo Laursen –  ☏  ⌘ 10:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, as you read, I had considered proposing the article for deletion, but then I got second thoughts. Maybe someone finds the page in the 1911 EB, and then wants to read more, then he can come to this page and see that really there is no such group. If, however, the page is put under the categorie Ethnic groups in Ethiopia, then the name Legas will be listed on that page, and that would make about as much sense as having Metropolis listed under the category cities in the United States of America, on the strength that in Superman cartoons it is claimed that it is one. You sure want to have an article on Metropolis, but since it does not really exist, you will not put it under any category except maybe Fictional cities or twowns or something like that. Is there a category for ethnic non-entities? That's where I would put Legas. Landroving Linguist ( talk) 11:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply

It may be that the ethnic group Legas doesn't exist, but you can't compare it to something fictional. It has a source, although EB reflects outdated views about ethnicity. Non-existent ethnic groups art still of category "ethnic groups", and if there is need for a category "non-existent ethnic groups" it would be a subcategory. –  Leo Laursen –  ✍  ⌘ 13:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I have now proposed the article for deletion. If you do not agree with this, you need to go to the page Legas and remove my tag. The thing will then be brought to the AfD discussion page. But actually, I hope you agree with the deletion! I assume that your motivation so far has been a dislike for uncategorized articles, and not a particular interest in this article as such. Best wishes! Landroving Linguist ( talk) 09:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Please do not move pages to nonsensical titles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to learn more about moving pages, please see the guidelines on this subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you.

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. Leo Laursen –  ✍  ⌘ 07:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there. I see you added a notability tag to Taman Inquiry. Is there a specific aspect of the article you think might not meet the notability requirements? Or is it the event itself? If yes, please let me know and I will attempt to improve. justinfr ( talk/ contribs) 11:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I was questioning the notability of the inquiry itself. I'm unsure as to any guide lines that may apply to this, so I was basically hoping to get some opinions. –  Leo Laursen –  ✍  ⌘ 14:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Sounds good. I'm also not aware of any section on WP:N that deals with public proceedings like this specifically. With something like the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry in Manitoba, it led to a massive overhaul of the province's justice system and so was definitely notable. (Even though the article is a stub; expanding it is on my to do list.) With the Taman Inquiry it's hard to say whether it will have similar impact, given that the report hasn't yet been released. It did dominate the Manitoba news for a few months though. I'll be interested in the feedback as well. justinfr ( talk/ contribs) 17:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Coderuler, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Eastmain ( talk) 18:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Not sure if you are still watching the page. Old reply here. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the notice, I gave up watching the page a couple of days ago. –  Leo Laursen –  ✍  ⌘ 12:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Created Song of Songs (2006 film) to replace Song of Songs (film) as there's another film with that name; see disambiguation page. Cheers! Shir-El too 12:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Excellent, but next time, please use the move button, so the history is preserved.-- Leo Laursen – ( talk · contribs) 14:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Unicode chart templates, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker ( talk) 18:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brahman-Atman Yoga is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brahman-Atman Yoga (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 10:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

A nomination is taking place as to discuss whether Tom Crabtree (journalist) should be deleted or not. The discussion will be held at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Crabtree (journalist). However, do not remove the AfD message. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 ( talk) 02:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply