User talk:George Leung

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, George Leung, 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!  -- Longhair | Talk 07:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Bluegrass music, "mouth harp" 2 SFU computer 3 Chromatic Approaches 4 Red Steel 2 5 Good catch on the 2006 slip up in 3DO page. 6 An Automated Message from HagermanBot 7 AfD 8 Response 9 Regarding your edits to Anime Evolution 10 Sarah Lang (poet) 11 Bible -- material on violence 12 References 13 Quintain link 14 Epbr123‎ 15 Smile! 16 Citizendium versus Wikipedia (oh my)

[edit] Bluegrass music, "mouth harp"

Mouth harp can often refer to Jew's harp, but I have never heard it refer to a harmonica. It is listed as an alternate name for both instruments, and the Mouth harp page has been changed several times between redirecting to one or the other (I changed it to a DAB page). Cmadler 12:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SFU computer

Yeah, I'd figured that it was an SFU account. With only a couple days to go before The Peak publishes I'm not so worried with "bad" material creeping into the article. Come Monday the article can be cleaned up and the citations looked over. Inevitably this is going to attract a bunch of attention by people who are more and less aware of Wikipedia's editorial guidelines, so cleaning up periodically is the best that can be done. I'm feeling like letting people have a bit of slack to "mess up" a little, since sometimes some very good changes are made then, and the not-so-good can be corrected.

I don't know if it's necessary yet to lock Vanessa's page. Usually locks are only done on user pages at the user's request or when the vandalism is extreme. We'll see how it goes—I have her page on my watchlist. In the meantime just reverting any vandalism should be enough. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chromatic Approaches

I was editing the section "Pros and Cons" under "Chromatic Harmonica" and noticed a sentence of yours which contrasted two different "approaches" near the end. I couldnt find a referance to these previously in the article, so i thought you could either add one or remove the sentence. thanks Urukagina 05:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Steel 2

Red Steel 2 has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this information might not be verifiable. Please review Wikipedia:Verifiability for the relevant policy. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so, citing reliable sources.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good catch on the 2006 slip up in 3DO page.

Thanks! I had about a billion things going on while I was working on that. BcRIPster 05:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 10:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

You said: "if this can be deleted, so can many other articles for Star wars and Star Trek" and then went ahead and nominated Luke Skywalker and A-wing for deletion. Don't nominate articles for deletion unless you really want them to be deleted. Tizio 11:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that in nominating Luke Skywalker for deletion you are disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. If you are dissatisfied with a deletion result there is deletion review, however this is only if you believe there is a valid reason for undeletion. I apologise if I came over harshly, you may not have known about that guideline, but please in future consider the effect your actions may have more thoughtfully. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

As James said, don't nominate an article for deletion to try and prove a point. The RX-78 crisis has been mostly averted. There is no point in trying to get retribution now or ever -- it makes all of us who are fans of the Gundam multiverse look childish. Maikeru 18:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Well, at the moment I have no plans to nominate any more Gundam articles for deletion; and certainly not without getting consensus to do so first. I agree that it's time to let the smoke and dust settle a bit and work towards improvements on Gundam/anime articles rather than whacking them.

Ironically, my concern isn't actually notability, at least not fully, and I do understand the point that not notable in the UK (where I am) or the US does not equal not notable. After all, we are at Wikipedia written in English, not the Anglocentric Wikipedia. The only cases where I could really discern lack of notability was where the article told me itself: "Hey! Look at me! I'm non-notable" - that is, it said that the weapon in question only appeared on 1 episode of the video game or the anime, or whatever. Then I can discern notability. But otherwise I can't.

My main beef with most of the articles was that very few of them actually asserted notability - that is, real-world notability. Some of them did not even assert notability within the Gundam universe! That's actually a WP:SPEEDY deletion criterion. Added to which most of the articles had no references to support whatever assertion of notability they might contain, so problems with WP:V. Just to clarify: it was this, and not non-notability, that got me making those AFD and PROD nominations.

As to future course of action, I fully plan to spend time over the next few weeks helping WP:GUNDAM and WP:ANIME - which I suspect suffers from many of the same problems - sort themselves out. Quite apart from anything else, I'd feel an awful rat if I nominated a whole bunch of your articles for deletion and then scuttled back without helping to clean up the mess to opera, where I don't have to worry about lack of notability 99 percent of the time. So I have got a conscience about the thing, and I will help. Furthermore I do enjoy reading these Gundam/anime articles, many of which are very interesting, and it's amazing the amount you can learn just by reading Wikipedia.

Anyway, I hope, this answers some of your wonderfully civil - rare enough these days, so thank you - questions. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 12:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your edits to Anime Evolution

Your edit doesn't really fit with the article per se, but where did you get this information? Speaking as a former executive, I can certainly tell you that your comments about the SFSS and Anime Evolution are completely incorrect. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 17:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Lang (poet)

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Sarah Lang (poet), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Kla'quot 08:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bible -- material on violence

Hi. I moved this material to Talk:Bible because, for the reasons I gave there, I think it's likely that the local newspaper article is not describing the research's conclusions, and degree of confidence about them, reliably. Would it be possible to provide a reference (on-line if possible but any reference available) to the actual paper publishing this research? This would permit reliably verifying the article content. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that the original article has been found and identified. Give me a courtesy 24 hours and I'll double-check the article and put the material back edited if I think the research hasn't been accurately described. I'd note that in addition to saying more about the nature of the instrument used and why the researchers believe it to correlate with aggression, we'd also need to, for example, clarify that these passages are ones that these researchers characterize as violent -- Wikipedia can't present interpretations of the Bible as fact, and hence can't present as fact that these passages are violent, or that the acts they describe are crimes. Added this comment to Talk:Bible. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Hi George,

In the article you've put a few "see below" comments to references. I've cleaned it up for you a bit, and I thought I'd let you know how you can use a reference multiple times.

What you do is that you put <ref name="unique name tag"> in stead of just <ref> in front of the first reference. At the other places you want to place a reference, all you have to do is place <ref name="unique name tag" /> behind it and it will make a reference to the same as above.

A complete explanation on references can be found on Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to cite sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes.

Feel free to ask if you have any more questions ;-)

Cheers JackSparrow Ninja 07:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quintain link

I have removed the external link you added to Quintain, partly because I found the level of advertising (and pop-ups) objectionable, but mainly because the site contains rather a lot of nonsense. For example, it describes the Destrier as the most common warhorse (blatantly false) and 24 hands high, (impossible: try 14-16 hands for a medieval horse). A quick skim through other sections showed inaccuaracies and complete nonsense in food, torture, feudalism etc. I'm mentioning this as a friendly warning: don't use the site for your own research, as you will need to check everything to separate fact and fiction. Who knows how so much misinformation was collected in one place.(grin). Gwinva 10:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Epbr123‎

Hi, George. I appreciate your concerns with Epbr123‎, and share them, but AnonEMouse has told me that deleting sections from your talk page-- though questionable-- is not officially prohibited. So I wouldn't recommend getting into any kind of edit-war with him over this. Dekkappai 22:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smile!

I think we all need it :) LaMenta3 03:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citizendium versus Wikipedia (oh my)

Let the controversy begin. The cabal. Thanks for your informative vote. I can see the news headlines now... Lol. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 19:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have significantly expanded the text of the article. Explore your thoughts. Think long and hard about your vote. Hmmm. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 04:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)