User talk:TonyLeigh
 | This user may have left Wikipedia. TonyLeigh has not edited Wikipedia since 19 October 2012. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
We hope that you will become a legitimate editor and create an account. Again, you are welcome here at Wikipedia, but remember not to vandalize or you will soon be blocked from editing.
If you feel you have received this message in error, it may be because you are using a shared IP address. Nevertheless, repeated vandalism from this address may cause you to be included in any future punishments such as temporary blocks or bans. To avoid confusion in the future, we invite you to create a user account of your own.
Robdurbar 15:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Do not assume the definition of nonsense. Changing one phrase to an uncommon one is nonsense. I am very active on anti-vandal patrols and I can make mistakes. But do not assume that a revert is vandalism because it is not. I felt that changing the line from "topped playlists worldwide" to "was a hit" is nonsense since you can look up RIAA chart positions for that song by the region. And next time you want to comment on my talk page have a more valid claim and get your facts together. And please learn how to spell nonsense. Daa89563 22:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
If you are so active on wikipedia and do not belive in vandalism then I assume you already know not to make perosnal attacks, in this case you are simply ignoring the policy and making them anyway. Also, RIAA is America, not "worldwide" and as you have already looked this up as you claim you should already know this. Therefore if anyone is talking nonsence as you seem to think it is you for 1. Not providing a source for something you claim is very easy to do and 2. the source you claim you could easily provide is just for the United States not "worldwide" as the article and your revert claimed. Therefore it makes sence to go with factual and correct information and not one that is vague, not sourced and (if sourced) would refer to one country being "worldwide" 74.65.39.59 00:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
First of all all comments made by me were in defense. Secondly, the RIAA represents all US recording artist including the artists sales made in and outside of the United States. The RIAA is part of the IFPI which reports worldwide sales. What seperates the two is that the RIAA only represents US recording artists. Sales made outside the US by American recording artists given to the IFPI are reported to the RIAA. And since Nirvana was a US recording group there sales worldide were reported to the IFPI and the RIAA. If you need proof please visit www.ifpi.org, and www.riaa.com.Daa89563 00:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Sales has nothing whatsoever to do with "playlists". If you can provide a source then simply provide one, otherwise stop making claims. As for your claim of "defense" I never personally attacked you, so please don't try justify your own hot air by pretending otherwise 74.65.39.59 11:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
This discussion has dragged on long enough! I did not say that you attacked me, if you notice there is a comment before you that you were not involved in. The edit that I made was a revert! This person also didn't cite a source as to the edit claiming "chart topping." That first of all was the nature of the revert. What I said about the RIAA and US artists is very true, and I gave you sources to which you can find this information. And that information was given to you per your comments made after my first comment. IF you want to continue this argument about what claim is correct between playlists and charts, I suggest you go back to that page and find the person who actually posted the comment and have this discussion with them! As with anyone else on RC patrol, we make mistakes during reverts. I make mistakes during reverts. I will own up to my own mistakes. If I reverted in error then thats fine anyone can catch it and change it. But in no way is that vandalism!! Which is why myself and TonyLeigh were having this discussion. And I addressed this user on my talk page as well as on theirs due to the comments that were made between us. Finally 74.65.39.59, there is nothing more to discuss here! If you feel like it should, bring it up before arbitration. Otherwise leave it dead!Daa89563 22:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Whatever, doesn't alter the fact you were making personal attacks, which is no better than Vandalism. However, as I assume you believe this has "gone on long enough" then you are done with it and won't be making anymore 74.65.39.59 00:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually I was not personally attacking this user. I said nothing personal about this person. 74.65.39.59 please thoroughly read the Wikipedia:No personal attacks section. What I said can be considered rude, but not a PERSONAL ATTACK! 74.65.39.59 do not accuse me of making personal attacks when I didn't. You can say "whatever" or go on and make more bogus claims or drag this on even more than it has to be. I have my facts together, and I am willing to be civil about this whole situation. To TonyLeigh, I apologize for my rude behavior as it was a poor show of civility on my part. To 74.65.39.59, I want you to thoroughly read the policies and guidlines for wiki editing, because the accusation that you are making is not civil. You can't accuse someone of something that they haven't done, or say they violated a policy that you don't completely understand, or are misinterpretating. As I have said there is nothing more to discuss, and there are no more accusations to make.Daa89563 18:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on CD Now requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, 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 article's 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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Kannie | talk 20:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Always Leaving[edit]
I have nominated Always Leaving, 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/Always Leaving. 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. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs[edit]
Hello TonyLeigh! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 944 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
- Darius Perkins - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The article The Very Best of Kenny Rogers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Non-notable budget line release, unofficia, no sources.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The article Daytime Friends – The Very Best of Kenny Rogers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- No reliable sources, no notability as unofficial one-off album.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The article 20 Great Years has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Unofficial release, no secondary sources, no real notability.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
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) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of Country 1035 for deletion[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country 1035 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.