User talk:Lendorien

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

Archive 2006 - User Talk for 2006 Archive 2007 - User Talk for 2007 Archive 2008 - User Talk for 2008

Hi Pawyilee. I noticed that you've done a lot of edits on this article and seem to be somewhat knowledgable. I'm an active cleanup editor and noticed that this article needed a little work. I've done some extensive editing to the article to make it more readable and clarify a few things. If you could check over my work to make sure that I didn't mess up anything, I'd be most appreciative. I'm not knowledgable about the Thai calendar, so I could only go on what was there. Thanks! --Lendorien (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank YOU; I need all the help I can get. Your edit of Thai_lunar_calendar#Years made mine possible, and would appreciate your checking it for clarity. I'm a bit busy now and don't have the time to go over the whole article write now, but will look later to see if we can further improve it. Pawyilee (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you already have one of these for essentially the same thing, but I want you to know that your work at WP:Cleanup is not only noticed but admired. I wish I were able to help you more than I do, and certainly if there's ever any specific thing I can do to help you out, don't hesitate to ask. -- edi(talk) 19:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this barnstar, though it's far less than you deserve, to thank you for your amazing and absolutely tireless work at WP:Cleanup. You rock! -- edi(talk) 19:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Barnstar. I do the stuff I do because I love information and fixing broken stuff... and because I'm trying to get WP:C down to no listings at all eventually (at this rate it'll take another 3 years. Those lists are sort of outdated in fuction. Still, It's very kind of you to recognize my work. I've seen your name around as well. You deserve no less recognition. Thank you. --Lendorien (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits on this article. I've been struggling to try and clean it up to something at least somewhat encyclopaedic. You did a lot better job than I had been doing. Now if only we could get the synopsis edited. Heh. In any case. Just wanted to give some recognition.--Lendorien (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for your thanks! I've worked with many musical theatre articles, it's fairly easy for me to do some referencing and getting the article into a roughly decent shape. Now, when it comes to plots, I am totally useless...even when I've seen the piece, I have a very poor memory, and I also never know what goes in and what does not. Anyway, I may re-visit the article in the future, I sometimes like to let things settle in my thoughts for a while. JeanColumbia (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The synopsis on this article is pretty bad and while I'm generally pretty good at editing, my unfamiliarity witht he subject makes me a bit nervous about editing it. I'm not sure I'm all that interested in seeing the thing either. It sounds like one big really corny cliche. --Lendorien (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no! You should run, not walk to see this show. It's a very interesting musical and was rather edgy when it first came out. It juxtaposes horror and musical comedy in a genre-bending way. The horror is pointedly campy. Kind of like The Mystery of Irma Vep, but for a younger, 90's sort of sensibility. Plus, it has a very good score. The best way to write a plot summary is to read the script and summarize as you go. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to jump in on the praise, too. I've noticed Bat Boy: The Musical's come quite a long way since I last looked at it; I think you're to be commended for your seemingly tireless efforts. It definitely reads much better with your edits and I have to say, I'm impressed. Best wishes, -- Ryoji.kun (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noted you marked this as needing cleanup.

I started last night but it's gonna take some time, it's a long article. It's in my sandbox on my user page, I've put a marker how far I've got and that's just my first pass. As you say, it's not hard, but it's LONG. Will be half the size when I've finished with it.

What should I do with it then? SimonTrew (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Welcome to Wikipedia! Be bold in your edits. Make sure you keep sourcing. You have two options. You can overwrite the old text when done. Be sure to put a note in the article's talk page about what edits you've made and perhaps why. This is an important step. Sometimes just stating rational can avoid edit wars.

Alternately, what I've seen other folks do, is do the edit in the sandbox, post a note on the article's talk page inviting comments and suggestions on your edit and once a bit of time has passed and people have had a chance to comment and make suggestions, post it. You could also solicit comments from other editors who have edited the article by commenting on their talk pages. --Lendorien (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been editing for a while so I think I know the basics.

One difficulty with this article is scrubbing the jargon. At the moment I am going really to baby talk and trying to avoid all technical terms at all where possible. This may be a bit extreme, I am not sure what the intended audience is for the article. One early, easy start is to say it's also called a spider then consistently, after that, call it a spider-- not mix the two together. As I say it is not hard to edit just LONG. It will take a few passes and will get shorter each pass.

I think yeah, I will leave it in the sandbox and get people to comment on it there. However, past experience shows that people rarely check the talk pages for an article. Then you fix put it in the main space and WOAH! Who called the army?!

I like the suggestion of putting messages on regular editors' own user talk pages, that's a good idea.

The other problem of course is if the article significantly changes while I am doing the cleanup, well hey ho that happens in any kind of software.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know about the talk page conundrum, but if you post there, at least people have a place to look if they have a problem. Staves off some issues at least.

In any case, I don't think that defining a term and then using it in the article is a bad idea. I know sometime people will use wiki-links to do the same thing. Example: "A black widow is a type of arachnid." We didn't define Arachnid because it's wiki-linked. If you don't know what it is, you can follow the link. Might not be a good practice with everything, especially seriously technical articles, but there you go.

The goal I think is so that a general audiance can read it without being boggled. Natually, that won't work with every article as some stuff is technical by nature. At the very least, the introduction should be general audiance accessible. That's my view of editing here for what it's worth. --Lendorien (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lendorien has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Lendorien's day! For your diligent, civil style of editing, enjoy being the Star of the day, Lendorien! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 04:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox.

Thanks for the feedback - happy to be of service, its an interesting period of history! --Hchc2009 (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nat_Tarnopol#Cleanup_needed. Hope you are still interested. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lendorien, he's actually quite well-known within certain circles, which you'll see if you check through Google and Google books, and read the Times obit. It's just that this is a stub, and I've not had time to fill it out yet. I'll do it soon. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 February 2007, you moved this article in good faith to "Veolia Transportation" which only applies to the North American branch of "Veolia Transport", a French subsidiary of Veolia Environmental. "Veolia Transport" is the name used by the parent company and in the rest of the world. Since this article is not just about North American operations, I have moved it back, with Veolia Transportation being a redirect to the relevant section. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Well, sounds like you resolved the issue without the need for my input. Likely, your solution is what I should have done in the first place. Thanks for resolving this. --Lendorien (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In November 2008, you marked this article for cleanup. I have re-written the content of the article to wikify it, added references, and fixed spelling and grammar. Please let me know after you have reviewed the article if you have any further suggested changes. Bobinit (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey good job on the article. It's a LOT better. You did a good job on it! A lot of these sorts of articles just sort of languish for years. The main suggestion I have is to use the Cite Web template for your website references as that is the accepted way to cite websites. If you need any help, let me know! --Lendorien (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that means a lot coming from you. I really appreciate it. I will absolutely use the template in the future. I looked at it, and am definitely going to have to spend some time with it before I get comfortable. I have been all manual editing so far, and am just learning how to use some of the tools available. I think I spent at least a couple of hours going through that Redskins article. Probably should have taken me 20 minutes, but reading the whole season was quite a chore. Anyway, Thanks again.Bobinit (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lendorian, You put this article in cleanup (also in Nov 2008), and I forgot to let you know that I cleaned it up a week or so ago. It was a doozy as I had to take all of the info out of rounds 7-9, put them into a speadsheet, reformat the order and info so that it was in sync with rounds 1-6, and then create tables for each round. There is probably a faster way to do it, but no one was jumping on it in cleanup so I took the plunge. Rounds 7-9 did not have the player nationality listed as rounds 1-6 do, so I had to omit that from the table.

I deleted it from the cleanup list, and wanted to let you know. You are also active in cleanup so I have a couple of questions. Why does it seem like most of the articles in cleanup are not tagged for cleanup in the article itself? When I cleanup, I always look for the tags in the article when I finish so that it would be auto removed from wp:cleanup. Is there a specific process that is supposed to be followed to insert something into cleanup, and also for the cleanup team after it is finished?

Thanks in advance for your feedback. Bobinit (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some of those table formatted pages. Ugh. Way to go for fixing it. In any case, The wikipedia cleanup page is a legacy page. For the most part, the cleanup tag catagories are what a lot of editors look for when cleaning up. Pages listed on Wiki:cleanup were identified via the old system. Chances are a lot of them had cleanup tags at one time and had them removed. I tend to review articles when that happens and either re-add the appropriate tags, or remove the item from the list if it's in good shape. I personally put a note on the discussion page of the article with my observation on what needs to be fixed. It's a good practice because it justifies the tags and gives other editors a place to start. --Lendorien (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lendo, The wedgie article had waned on cleanup for a while, so I dug in and cleaned it up a bit. I removed the 3rd place finish at the fair for creating wedgie-proof undergarments and the self-defense section. While humorous, I doubt that anyone would classify a wedgie variant as a form of self defense. Wikified a few sentences, and improved readability. As you suggested in talk, I am sure an inspired person can add more information, but I just wanted to clean up and add a bit of encyclopedic tone to it per the cleanup request.Bobinit (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I tagged the article as having multiple issues, and only later noticed your clear and helpful To Do List.

I'm afraid I haven't got anywhere with sourcing, citing and references, but I know a little about the wider international cultural context, so I've made improvements there. As far as types of shorts goes, I believe that there are local names for some short styles in different regions of Africa and Asia, but I can't think of any that are actually used in English. I've made rather a lot of notes on the article issues too, if you're interested in giving your opinion. Centrepull (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sutton High logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lendorien. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know (I am supposed to - this is what it says). Ottawahitech (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not missing, I'm just not around much! --Lendorien (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lendorien, I'd like to invite you to an upcoming edit-a-thon:

ART+FEMINISM EDIT-A-THON

• Saturday, March 5th, 9:30 a.m. – noon
• Madison Public Library (Madison, Wisconsin)
• Bring a laptop! There will be snacks and daycare

RSVP on the event page if you plan to attend or have any suggestions. czar 00:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You received this message because you are a member of Category:Wikipedians in Wisconsin. To opt-in to future Madison event messages, add yourself to the mailing list.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eyes Wide Open (Naildown song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyes Wide Open (Naildown song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Burley22 (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]