User contributions for RoyLeban
A user with 1,143 edits. Account created on 2 January 2009.
6 February 2024
- 08:1108:11, 6 February 2024 diff hist +7 Rosalinda (given name) "might just mean" is POV, changed to NPOV
- 08:1008:10, 6 February 2024 diff hist +26 Rosalinda (given name) Cleaned up See also's Tag: Disambiguation links added
- 08:0908:09, 6 February 2024 diff hist −18 Rosalinda Cleaned up See also's Tag: Disambiguation links added
- 08:0908:09, 6 February 2024 diff hist +73 Rosalind (given name) Cleaned up See also's Tag: Disambiguation links added
- 08:0908:09, 6 February 2024 diff hist −4 Rosalind Cleaned up See also's Tag: Disambiguation links added
- 08:0908:09, 6 February 2024 diff hist +104 Rosalyn Rosalyn and Rosalynn are really different names, just like Rosalind and Rosalinda are a different name, so I have changed them to be in separate lists. Perhaps they should be separate pages. Also cleaned up See also's Tag: Disambiguation links added
5 February 2024
- 13:2413:24, 5 February 2024 diff hist +58 Rosalyn →People: Rosalyn Yalow won the Nobel Prize and it should be mentioned as part of her 1-line bio. See, for example, the Linus page for Linus Pauling Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
10 December 2023
- 12:5712:57, 10 December 2023 diff hist +6,275 User talk:SMcCandlish →Should this change to the guideline be reverted?: Reply Tag: Reply
5 December 2023
- 12:1312:13, 5 December 2023 diff hist +2,870 User talk:SMcCandlish →Should this change to the guideline be reverted?: Reply Tag: Reply
4 December 2023
- 11:3611:36, 4 December 2023 diff hist +2,040 User talk:SMcCandlish →Should this change to the guideline be reverted?: Reply Tag: Reply
- 08:3308:33, 4 December 2023 diff hist +143 Doink The term "double doink" in football is obviously derivative of the singular term "doink"; although there is no page for that, it is now discussed (with a citation) on the "Double Doink" page.
- 08:0808:08, 4 December 2023 diff hist +444 Double Doink Added reference for term "doink" by itself; also "The Double Doink" should be capitalized, but "double doink" should not be capitalized as it is not a proper noun; note that a cite web tag has an error, but it is not the new citation I added
2 December 2023
- 13:4413:44, 2 December 2023 diff hist +2,249 User talk:SMcCandlish →Should this change to the guideline be reverted?: Reply Tag: Reply
- 05:3005:30, 2 December 2023 diff hist +3,276 User talk:SMcCandlish →Should this change to the guideline be reverted?: Reply Tag: Reply
30 November 2023
- 05:4105:41, 30 November 2023 diff hist +2,162 User talk:SMcCandlish →Should this change to the guideline be reverted?: Reply Tag: Reply
- 05:3205:32, 30 November 2023 diff hist +6 m Talk:Twitter →Removed incorrect statement about stylization of the name X
- 05:3205:32, 30 November 2023 diff hist +424 Talk:Twitter →Page renaming: Name is X, not 𝕏
- 05:2605:26, 30 November 2023 diff hist +1,372 Talk:Twitter →Removed incorrect statement about stylization of the name X: new section Tag: New topic
- 05:1905:19, 30 November 2023 diff hist +1 Twitter Correction. Twitter/X does not "stylize" their name as 𝕏. I can find no primary or secondary sources that use 𝕏 rather than X. Their logo is the Unicode character 𝕏, like Apple's logo is (roughly) the Unicode character and nobody would say Apple stylizes their name as . The citation for the supposed stylization calls 𝕏 a logo and uses X throughout. See also: https://twitter.com/en/tos for how X uses their name. More on talk page.
29 November 2023
- 07:3107:31, 29 November 2023 diff hist +2,546 User talk:SMcCandlish →Should this change to the guideline be reverted?: Reply Tag: Reply
27 November 2023
- 07:3607:36, 27 November 2023 diff hist +13 m User talk:SMcCandlish →Should this change to the guideline be reverted?
- 07:3307:33, 27 November 2023 diff hist +1,088 User talk:SMcCandlish →Should this change to the guideline be reverted?: Reply Tag: Reply
26 November 2023
- 12:2012:20, 26 November 2023 diff hist +2,637 User talk:SMcCandlish →Should this change to the guideline be reverted?: Reply Tag: Reply
19 November 2023
- 12:5112:51, 19 November 2023 diff hist +326 Wordmark Cleaned up the dubious text; citations not complete; The section "Comparison with logos" should properly move to the Logo page, not this one, with a cross-reference left behind (images are also more appropriate there). Also note: SONY is uppercase here because it is referencing the SONY logo, not the Sony name.
18 November 2023
- 08:3708:37, 18 November 2023 diff hist +215 User talk:RoyLeban →Mea culpa: Reply Tag: Reply
17 November 2023
- 07:3207:32, 17 November 2023 diff hist +1,881 User talk:SMcCandlish →Should this change to the guideline be reverted?: Reply Tag: Reply
14 November 2023
- 11:3611:36, 14 November 2023 diff hist +2,205 User talk:SMcCandlish →Should this change to the guideline be reverted?: Reply Tag: Reply
12 November 2023
- 11:4911:49, 12 November 2023 diff hist +2,097 User talk:SMcCandlish →Should this change to the guideline be reverted?: Reply Tag: Reply
- 11:3311:33, 12 November 2023 diff hist +26 Word mark (computer hardware) Wordmark is a branding term, not a graphic design term (the graphic design term is logo or the older logotype, or, occasionally, logomark); also, because sometimes people mistakenly use the term "word order mark" when they mean "byte order mark", I added a {{Distinguish}} tag for that.
10 November 2023
- 12:0112:01, 10 November 2023 diff hist +1,047 User talk:SMcCandlish →Real name: Reply Tag: Reply
- 11:5211:52, 10 November 2023 diff hist +1,893 User talk:SMcCandlish →Should this change to the guideline be reverted?: Reply Tag: Reply
8 November 2023
- 06:5306:53, 8 November 2023 diff hist −1 m User talk:SMcCandlish →Real name
- 06:5206:52, 8 November 2023 diff hist +122 m User talk:SMcCandlish →Real name
- 06:5006:50, 8 November 2023 diff hist +1,837 User talk:SMcCandlish →Real name: Reply Tag: Reply
- 06:4806:48, 8 November 2023 diff hist +280 Talk:Wordmark →Suggestion: Merge this into the 'Logo' article: Reply Tag: Reply
- 06:4706:47, 8 November 2023 diff hist +567 Talk:Wordmark →Books removed from "Further Reading": new section Tag: New topic
- 06:4506:45, 8 November 2023 diff hist −306 Wordmark →Further reading: Removed two "further reading" books that are about graphic design, not branding. It's possible they are good references for the Logo page. I do not know the details of the third book, but I am assuming for now that it is applicable. Also removed from Commons category text logos and the Wikipedia Logos category. The Typography category is also suspect.
- 06:2606:26, 8 November 2023 diff hist +2,134 User talk:SMcCandlish →Should this change to the guideline be reverted?: Reply Tag: Reply
1 November 2023
- 05:2405:24, 1 November 2023 diff hist +98 Wordmark Added dubious tag for "wordmark logo" and "lettermark"
- 05:2305:23, 1 November 2023 diff hist +741 Talk:Wordmark →Dubious: new section Tag: New topic
31 October 2023
- 02:5202:52, 31 October 2023 diff hist +2,972 User talk:SMcCandlish →Real name
27 October 2023
- 11:1711:17, 27 October 2023 diff hist +143 Wordmark Rewrote paragraph on brand marks (a term I can't find sourcing for, but the class of marks certainly exists); The citation needed is for both the term and the fact that wordmarks and logos are the most common types (though that's fairly obvious). Also, some minor cleanup.
- 11:0311:03, 27 October 2023 diff hist +1,377 Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy →Removing "Despite persistent allegations that the laptop contents indicated corruption by Joe Biden...": Reply Tag: Reply
26 October 2023
- 11:1811:18, 26 October 2023 diff hist +449 Talk:Wordmark →IBM a lettermark?: Reply Tag: Reply
- 11:1411:14, 26 October 2023 diff hist +273 Talk:Wordmark →Public domain: Reply Tag: Reply
- 11:1211:12, 26 October 2023 diff hist +964 Talk:Wordmark →Cleaning this up: new section Tag: New topic
- 11:0211:02, 26 October 2023 diff hist −121 Wordmark The logos shown, by definition, were not wordmarks. The page was written as if a wordmark was the same thing as a logo (with no sources that say anybody thinks that). I have changed this and corrected related errors in the first section. Also removed "or logotype" in first paragraph because that isn't correct (logo is a short form of logotype). The article still needs a bunch of work (last two paragraphs are just wrong) and citations are definitely needed!
- 10:2210:22, 26 October 2023 diff hist +1,172 Talk:Wordmark →Microsoft/Canada logos as examples of wordmarks: Yes, those are not actually word marks.
- 10:0810:08, 26 October 2023 diff hist −113 Wordmark The citation for the US definition of the legal term "word mark" was to a page that did not contain the term. The statement is true, but a proper citation is needed.
- 10:0410:04, 26 October 2023 diff hist +2,449 User talk:SMcCandlish →Real name: Reply Tag: Reply
