User talk:Daniel J. Leivick

/Archive 1

Dodge Avenger

Daniel, I am struggling to understand why you keep deleting the text where I say that two features are "unique" when you think they are "unusual". I spend every work day reviewing cars and writing articles about them for online publications and magazines and I can tell you from experience that those features are unique features in the Dodge Avenger sedan, especially the Chill Zone, since it's a registered trademark of Dodge and is not available in any other mid-sized sedans. Also if they are not unique to the Avenger and are available in other vehicles, then what makes them unusual? Wouldn't that mean it's just another "me too" feature and therefor not unusual? Not only that, I don't see how it's fair that you ask me to cite why they are unique when you are not citing what makes them unusual. I am sure you will agree that this is a fairly silly argument and just the product of two different opinions, but I would politely ask that you leave my original text in the article.

Just though of this. Can we reach a compromise and say that two "uncommon" features available are....etc. Let me know what you think. --Redroller 18:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I explained in the second edit summary that the problem was with the phrase "most unique." There are not grades of uniqueness, either it is or it isn't unique. People say "most unique" all the time, but it really is improper grammer like "on accident" or other common grammer errors. In anycase "uncommon" would be a better way to put it as we can't really say they are unique unless there is a good third party source. --Daniel J. Leivick 22:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, you need to get a grip here buddy. You can write whatever it is that you want to write, apparently differing opinions mean nothing to you. I am not going to sit here and argue the definition of adjectives. I was not saying they were "somewhat unique", I was saying that of all of the features on the new Avenger those two features are the most unique of the bunch. Not somewhat unique. Not kind of unique. I think you need to think a little more about what you are writing before criticizing other people and throwing around arbitrary rules for editing text while thinking those rules don't apply to you. To mirror your sentence......we can't really say they are unusual unless there is a good thirty party source. Not to mention you could say the same thing about saying they are "uncommon". So why is that more acceptable to you? Change the text to whatever pleases you, I'm done wasting my time.--Redroller 22:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you might be misunderstanding me. There is no need for hostility. I am not talking about arbitrary rules or differences in opinion, I am talking about grammer rules. Unique means singular unparralled, saying "most unique" is equivilent to saying "most best." As for the sourcing issue, more oustanding claims like being unique require better sourcing, ideally all claims would be sourced, but in my experience on Wikipedia it is easier to get away with saying uncommon or unusual without a source. Really my only problem was with the "most unique" phrase rather then sourcing. I hope we can get along in the future. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! Gscshoyru 11:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Milestone home runs

You may have an opinion on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Milestone home runs by Barry Bonds.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dub (wheel)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dub (wheel), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dub (wheel). Thank you. jonny-mt(t)(c) 05:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sick and god damn tired of everything.

don't argue with me daniel. you know i'm sick of you bashing kid chris, you bash him all the time. when you edit an article, don't just undo it add to it. there is still some flaws with the wherever you are page.--Savetheeggs 23:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you are talking about, all I did was fix the clean up template so that it worked. I don't even know who kid chris is. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

yes ya do daniel, you know who kid chris is don't give me that. you were talkin about him last week, i'm sick and god damn tired of you bashin him,--Savetheeggs 03:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

RX-7

The changes to the RX-7 page are valid as there are a great number of RX-7's that now contain LS1 engines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.111.70 (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that it is a common modification my friend owns one, however info boxes are for stock configurations. Adding LS1 to the info box gives the reader the impression that Mazda sold RX-7 with LS1 motors in them, a ridiculous notion. Take this to WP:CAR if you would like to change policy. If you have any other questions please let me know. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Why is this band less notable then the page about "devil makes three" and other bands from Santa Cruz? If they get a page why not stellar corpses? I personally know both bands and one is not more famous or important then the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob falfa (talk • contribs) 21:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not making judgements on notability at the moment. All I am asking is to leave the red link off of the notable bands section until an article can survive being speedily deleted. This will require someone to create an article using reliable sources and neutral language otherwise it will likely be deleted. If you have done this and the article was still deleted you should take it up with however deleted the article. One more thing, in the future if some one sends you a message it is best to respond on the page where it was left rather than the persons own talk page. Let me know if you have any questions. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

0-60 mph

If one studies auto history thoroughly and applies cognitive thought, it would be concluded that the 0-60 section removed for opinion is objective and factual. The section you left, seemingly "fair" or "reasonable" (my original intent), is actually the subjective part. LOL, I should have to debate and defend the section you agreed with, but not the section you took out. Oh well.

The "muscle car" section of wiki has been refined thoroughly and afaik, does not claim the GTO as the first. Some day if we're lucky, collector car dealers with a shallow understanding of history will stop saying the GTO preceded all other affordable performance cars. Absurd? Annoying? Yes and yes, but not the end of the world.

MHS

If you read the first paragraph from the US News link (http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/high-schools/2007/11/29/the-ranking-formula.html), it states that "a great high school must serve all its students well, not just those who are bound for college." Since MHS student demographics includes college-bound & special needs pupils, the Admissions section should be considered reasonable & acceptable. Please elucidate your reasoning.

The paragraph you inserted claimed that Malibu High School was unusual for being highly ranked and not being a charter or magnet. All the source does not address this in any way. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

BMW 8 Series edit

Thanks for re-repairing the edit for the porn link in the BMW 8 Series page ... I will be keeping an eye on it because the person that undid my edit and put the porn movie reference and link back in there is the same person that has done this same thing 2 times now and is also the same person that originally started putting it in there (user: 76.100.176.82)... if you get a chance, can you please keep an eye on the BMW 8 Series page along with me? ... I have a feeling that this vandal is going to keep on doing this and I would bet that he will undo your edit sometime soon ... thanks, Chris -- Ukt-zero 09:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for keeping an eye on it. I have dealt with this guy in the past and ended up getting the page semi protected, the protection expired about a week ago. If he persists we can go the same route agains. User:Mastcell was the admin who helped me in the past so you can probably go through him if you need to and I'm not around. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ... as you can see, he is up to it again ... check out his contributions and you will see that he is doing the same thing on other pages - if you can get this admin to look at his editing history, maybe they will just ban him and get it over with ... thanks again Ukt-zero (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a dynamic IP so banning wont do much, page protection is the way to go if the problem persists. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Santa Cruz college town

Actually it is listed in the college town article, and there are a ton of sources online like SANTA CRUZ IS #1 COLLEGE TOWN IN NORTH AMERICA . Doesn't matter much to me if it stays in or not, just letting you know for the future in case someone reverts your revert, may need to allow it. -Bikinibomb (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, you are right. I still don't think it belongs in the lead. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Bugatti Fanboys

Daniel, I think we're having problem with fanboys removing 'second fastest' for Bugatti Veyron article no? Do you think this will lead to a lock? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.178.225 (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at this point. If the problem persists I would take it to WP:ANI or grab an admin if you know one. Let me know if you need any help with anything else. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Sorry man. I know you're not supposed to post "forum type" topics on Wikipedia, but I didn't want to have to go to some game forum to find this information out. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Extol

(Wehberf (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)) Hi Daniel, I have sourced the document now for Extol International and I have pleaded my case here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Extol_International Thanks for the help

Dodge Ram

I do not understand why you keep deleting my info on the Ram dash problem. I am a Ram owner who recieved help on the dash issue by writing Chrysler and telling them about it as they have not made it a recall when they well should have by now with so many Rams having the same problem. My goal is to get all Ram owners with a cracked dashboard to write Chrysler so they too can get theirs replaced at no cost, and if enough people call, they will finally have to issue a recall. It is a safety issue when you are dealing with wiring that gets damaged due to sun exposure and by coming in contact with the sharp jagged edges of the broken dash pieces. Do not delete something you know nothing about please. Jwess (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwess (talk • contribs) 01:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What you are talking about adding is original research there are not any reliables sources to indicate this is a problem. Wikipedia is not designed to organize class action against car companies. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Website

The info on the dodge ram dash problem is at www.local6.com so if you could please post it in the way that it doesn't violate Wikipedia standards I would much appreciate it. Thanks Jwess (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwess (talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but this really doesn't look like a notable story. A factory issued customer goodwill program at a couple of local Dodge dealerships in Florida does not need to be mentioned in a page covering the Dodge Ram as a whole. All production vehicles have a number of common faults, there is no reason to mention all of them on every single car page on Wikipedia and these stories which come from a local news channel (a borderline reliable source) don't really give a sense of whether it is a common issue or not all we really can say is that after a news channel complained Dodge offered new dashboards with hundred dollar deductables. In my experience in the service industry, this is pretty common, if someone complains loud enough car companies fix the problem for that person and others who mention that person, it happened all the time when I was working for Honda (whether the issue was common or not). IMO the only time it is appropriate to mention recalls and the like is if there is a national controversy surounding them, like the Ford Pinto or to a lesser degree tranny issues on the Honda Oddyssy. If you still feel strongly about this issue I would post the story on the Dodge Ram talk page and see if others feel different than me. If you would like you can also post it on WP:CAR talk and see if people there think it is a notable issue. At this point it is not a matter of direct policy violation, but you will still need to seek consensus before adding the material, if others disagree with me I will accept the groups decision. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on page:Muhammad

Well,the reason i removed picture is a totally different reason.I removed pictures because there was no way to verify their origins and they were totlly irrelvant and misleading. The consensus reached earlier were on different grounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alihasnain (talk • contribs) 01:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)