User talk:Leyo

Welcome on my talk page! If you have remarks or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me: Click here. Please note: If you write me here, I am going to reply here. If I left a comment on your talk page, please reply there as well.

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Persondata

Why should the Persondata remain, it doesn't exist anymore. It was rendered obsolete by Infobox and DEFAULTSORT, which serve it's purpose. Compassionate727 (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware of this recent change, sorry. --Leyo 22:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see the latest

…at the discussion at the Infobox page, on how to deal with data and references, here [1]. Cheers, Le Prof

The Talk sections DePiep deleted have been restored. Your comments invited and welcome. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion length has grown a lot. It's kind of hard to get the main points out of it. --Leyo 23:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Your voice needed in this discussion

I re-entered this discussion, in part because broadly experienced voices like yours had joined in. If time permits, consider returning to this it? It is about about Chembox sourcing? Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Multimedia fugacity model, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emissions (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I beg you nicely and politely

The benzene structure of Dewar and Ladenburg were 3D and my midterm assignment was to add the 3D struture, please understand me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShinRyu Forgers (talk • contribs) 04:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Leyo, this person also posted on my talkpage, where I responded in detail about the chemical problems ("wrong", not just redundant/lower-quality compared to other available). This is the second such enthustistic but seemingly out-of-his-depth (and using similar structure-misgeneration approach) I have encountered this week. Wonder if there are more in this class? DMacks (talk) 05:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• It is not the fault of Wikipedia editors that your teacher does not seem to have a clue about Wikipedia. Otherwise (s)he would not have given you such an assignment. See Wikipedia:Student assignments for more information.
• Key articles such as benzene can't be improved easily, since they are already on a high level. Niche articles, on the other hand, may be improved much more easily.
• If you intend to create high-quality ball-and-stick models of molecules (example), please read how to make 3D images of molecules.
• In any case, upload your files in much higher resolutions. 350 × 300 pixels is way too small, especially for print.

--Leyo 23:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

The Cure Award

In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

FC Zurich

Hi Leyo, Per WP:BURDEN, I have challenged unsourced statistics that have then been added back without any attempt to provide a source, despite me requesting on the users talk page. Regarding the notable players listing, there is a clear Manual of Style developed through longstanding consensus for this sort of thing. At every stage I have highlighted this in my edit summary. Elements that the other editor has made that have aligned the list with the required consensus have been left, elements that continue to fall well short of this requirement have been removed. At each instance the editor has been clearly directed to the area of the manual of style which continues to be contravened.

I am really not sure what discussion on the talk page would achieve (especially given that the user does not attempt to communicate in edit summaries and has not bothered to respond to my (admittedly belated) attempts to communicate directly on his talk page). Policy is clear, challenged information should not be added back without a reliable source and long standing consensus is clear at WP:FOOTY concerning how lists of notable players should be treated in club articles. A discussion between two editors on an article talk page would be an inappropriate forum to attempt to alter either policy or wider consensus. Fenix down (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Two longstanding users with opposite opinions (each of them thinks he's right), multiple reverts → edit war.

One's point cannot be forced through an edit war. You should have asked for an uninvolved party to step in. --Leyo 22:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Leyo, I've put the correct source-references for the Player Records section on the Talk:FC Zürich page with explanation on the source and the 'edit war' (which was not my intention to end in!). Since I'm blocked to edit the the site at the moment I'm unable to add them but will sure do if those sources and the new section are accepted. Fischbach (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

About some proposals on WT:VA/E

I've proposed to add chlorofluorocarbon and Magnesium chloride to WP:VA/E, but they have been having no votes for at least 7 days. Hope that you can participate in the voting of these proposals. Thanks!--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you post this to WT:Chem. --Leyo 16:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

MIREX (music)

Dear Leyo,

Since I have just started contributing to Wikipedia, I am still not familiar about the processes. Sorry for this. You marked the article "Music Information Retrieval Evaluation eXchange" as "considered for deletion". I have just started with cleaning up certain Wikipedia pages that are connected to the research area "Music Information Retrieval" (MIR). MIREX is an important component of that research area. Therefore, I think it should be included in Wikipedia. Since I have to synchronize/discuss many things with colleagues, it will take a couple of days until everything is in a good shape. The main changes concerns the following sites:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_for_Music_Information_Retrieval https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_information_retrieval https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Information_Retrieval_Evaluation_eXchange

Please reconsider your recommendation after these changes have been made. Of course, I am grateful for any helpful comments.Meinard.mueller (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Please post your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music Information Retrieval Evaluation eXchange. Concerning notability, see Wikipedia:Notability. --Leyo 09:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

MILS series

Please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metal Ions in Life Sciences and comment if wish. Petergans (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

What about bringing it up at WT:Chemistry? --Leyo 20:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. However, as the article has already been deleted, it's too late. Petergans (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Blaise Nkufo / Tiny Ruys

There was no "AWB error" on Nkufo and no "rollback vabdalism" on Ruys - it was the removal of unsourced material about BLPs. GiantSnowman 08:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that you need to learn how to use the edit summary properly. “clean up using AWB” does clearly not correspond to this massive removal of valid content.

Rollbacking is to fight vandalism. Any other reverts need to be (very briefly) reasoned. As you have previously been made aware, 60% of editors whose edits had been reverted without any explanation said that this made them less likely to edit, while only 9% of editors whose edits had been reverted with explanation felt less inclined to edit. Hence, consider this inappropriate warning as being directed to yourself. --Leyo 10:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that you need to read WP:NOTVAND. "Clean up" does refer to the removal of unsourced content about living people. The warning aimed at the IP was appropriate (though I fully acknowledge that I should have selected 'unsourced' rather than 'vandalism' option). GiantSnowman 12:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

“clean up using AWB” refers to technical clean-up, not to removal of content. --Leyo 21:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Warning on behavior in pesticide articles

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. 

In addition to the discretionary sanctions described above the Arbitration Committee has also imposed a restriction which states that you cannot make more than one revert on the same page in the same 24 hour period on all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, or agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to certain exemptions.

Normally I post that as just a head's up to new folks in these topics without a need for a formal warning, but you've already crossed the line where you could be sanctioned already (which is extremely surprising considering you are admin) with this edit.

A number of editors have been topic-banned for exactly this kind of behavior by casting aspersions about editors as part of content disputes whether it is outright calling them shills or saying they have "an agenda". We even put together a specific principle addressing this at the ArbCom case because people charge into these difficult topics and lash out at editors as you did. As the article is under discretionary sanctions, I highly suggest you refrain from such behavior in the future as previous incidents have only served to disrupt these topics in the past. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)