User talk:Leoesb1032/Archive 1

Reversion of Westphalia, Iowa

Earlier, I reverted a huge, unexplained, non-English addition to the article Westphalia, Iowa, because it appeared to be either a test edit, or a mass copy-paste from another project. Here is the diff of my revision: [1] You undid this reversion, and gave me a vandalism warning. I am a recent changes patroller myself, so I try to follow WP:VAN very closely. What do you believe I should have done instead of reverting? I had assumed from the lack of an edit summary that the user was just playing around with a live article. You flagged me for an unconstructive edit, although I left the basic "test edit" edit summary from WP:Huggle, which I thought clearly explained my actions. —Josh3580_talk/hist 00:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Graphene

I hope this was a misclick on your side. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for correcting me. I should reconsider my edits for this article. I desire to make them as constructive as possible. FranklynJimenez777 (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Revert on Denise Richards

Thank you for your check on my contribution. According to talk page, I believed that this change made by IP is vandalism. Please check talk page and decide what to do, or did I made something wrong. Thanks and BR.--CER@ (??ask??) 08:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This edit is a BLP violation; it adds an ethnic/national background which is not in the sources. Why did you do that, Leoesb1032? bobrayner (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

MMO List

I have left you a response on my talk page. BlitzGreg (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

List of megaprojects

Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding. I understand the appeal, to many editors, of tools that let you make lots of edits without the tiresome burden of having to understand what you're doing; but I must insist that you stop and look at what you're doing, and think about policies before clicking the button. I eagerly await your reply on my talkpage. Type it yourself instead of using an irrelevant template. Why did you repeatedly add large amounts of text which fails WP:V? bobrayner (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, how is this vandalism? And why did you insert this BLP violation? bobrayner (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to List of megaprojects. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Please be more specific about my "recent edits." I don't see how I am jeopardizing anything. All I'm doing is trying to use Stiki to revert vandalism and good faith edits. Cut me some slack, I just got it. Leoesb1032 (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

You are jeopardizing your rollbacker right with your recent edits. Please familiarize yourself with WP:Vandalism, WP:Do not template the regulars and Wikipedia:STiki before resuming the exercise of your rollback privilege. If you are unclear on any of the details discussed on the pages I've linked here, please ask for help from more experienced editors. I would also advise slowing down when you are making use of the rollback privilege. Regards Tiderolls 20:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, could you please check your edits before you save them? You warned an IP for this edit, The Bill is a British programme therefore uses British English spelling in the article (as stated on the talk page of the article). All the IP did was change the spelling of the word "curb" to the correct English spelling of "kerb". You've told them that they've made an unconstructive edit when they actually did nothing wrong. Just be careful of how you use Stiki. Kind Regards --5 albert square (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Copying your message on my talk here for clarity.) I saw you left a message on my talk page dealing with my rollback rights. Please be more specific about my recent edits. What I am doing is going on STiki and reverting edits that I see to be vandalism. I don't see how I am jeopardizing my rights. If you leave a message here, I will see it. Leoesb1032 (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I recognize that you believe that you are reverting vandalism; that's why I cautioned you rather than simply removing your rollbacker privilege. What I am trying to communicate is that some of the edits you're reversing are not vandalism. This did not revert vandalism (and inflamed an edit war and lead to templating an established editor), this did not revert vandalism and this did not revert vandalism. Using a somewhat automated tool to address edits imparts a certain responsibility on an editor to be aware of their surroundings. There always exists the possibility that edit wars are happening that you would want to avoid, situations that might involve discretionary sanctions relating to ArbCom cases that you would want to avoid and the ever present possibility that the editor you are considering reverting simply knows more about the subject than you do. Look, we all make mistakes; it's simply important that we learn from them and make an appreciable effort to avoid the same ones. Regards Tiderolls 22:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the criticism. I will try to use it to my advantage and I will be more careful when using editing tools such as STiki. If I make another mistake on it, please let me know. I just want to get better. Leoesb1032 (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leoesb1032, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Woodroar (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Revert on Gatorade

Re: gatorade as oral rehydration, I feel that the statement "Subsequent studies have suggested that Gatorade is at least as effective in treating dehydration as oral rehydration salts for adults[57] or Pedialyte for children between the ages of 5 and 12.[58]" is misleading.

Looking at the first study, here are a few issues with the statement: 1. They look only at mild dehydration (defined as <5% TBW) from viral gastroenteritis 2. This is not generalizable to all severities of dehydration, or dehydration from cholera, which is discussed immediately prior in the Wikipedia article. The article itself states that due to differences in stool composition in cholera (which is a bacterial diarrhea caused by cholera toxin) gatorade would make less sense as a rehydration solution 3. The study itself was underpowered, but even so there was a trend toward electrolyte imbalance in the gatorade group not seen with the ORS 4. "We thank Gatorade Foundation for an unrestricted grant and for supplying Gatorade and the New Oral Rehydration Solution" suggests a conflict of interest

The second citation is from the same group, and is a unpublished abstract presented at a society.

Gatorade is not an bad rehydration fluid, and there are certainly much worse. But the literature does not support the statement that it is as effective as oral rehydration salts in "treating dehydration." Futhermore, the broader literature on ORS would suggest that something with only 18meq/L of Na and 3 of K is far from ideal.

I appreciate your time. The reason I feel this is important is that I feel that a fair number of my patients get their medical info from Wikipedia and I do not feel that the statement is medically sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.76.157.163 (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

About Advertisements in schools‎

Hi, concerning Advertisements in schools‎, please note that the article did include a number of weasel words (for instance "Many argue that..."). In addition, websites like debate.org are not reliable sources (see this information about what constitutes a reliable source). Finally, original research is both facts that we "know" ourselves (for instance, that students should not be disturbed by ads seems like such a fact, but it really needs a source). In addition, if we take fact A from one source and fact B from another source and draw our own conclusion C from it, we can't add C to the article unless it is also covered in a reliable source - that's known as synthesis of facts. Rather than restore the templates, I've edited the article to try to fix these issues for now. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 10:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Why did you remove my edit on Tirangaa. I am an Indian. This movie was released in 1992 and became a blockbuster. Unfortunately I couldn't find any link. But in your case you must watch this video [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZORDANLIGHTER (talk • contribs) 04:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

What i wanted to say was that I know that the movie is successful. Actually the time when this movie was released at that time there was no internet critics in India in the year 1992. critics appeared in newspaper and film magazines. There is no website copy of that. Indian news agencies are not that advanced like newyorktimes who have updated all old news. I have read in so many magazines that this movie was successfull.The link of boxofficeindia is dead this link might work http://ibosnetwork.com/asp/filmbodetails.asp?id=TirangaaZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hi Leoesb1032, I just wanted to let you know that I have granted the reviewer userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, please contact me and I will remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Happy editing! — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Leoesb1032. In the Steve Capus page I think that is just to emphasize in the idea that the allegation have not been proven yet. Everybody deserves be innocent if anybody can prove other thing.

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felipe Barrull (talk • contribs) 09:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Washington Monument

Edit to place Washington Monument as tallest monument looks to be correct. However just because there is a statement on another Wikipedia page stating something it doesn't mean it is correct. Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for itself. Robynthehode (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Centralia mine fire. Aoidh (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)