User:Daniel J. Leivick/Archive 4

Murex SAS

Would appreciate if you could (sometime) review the current version to see whether it violates G11 or is otherwise inappropriate, sub-par. Open to any constructive suggestions you may have. Thanks very much for your kind attention to this matter. Ernie shoemaker (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me. I cleaned it up a little to remove a little bit of ad copy type language. Let me know if you have any other questions. --Leivick (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia experience--Relationship between religion and science

Entered link to ‘Religion’ site. It was immediately deleted. Undid the deletion. Deleted again by another person. Justifications for deletions: irrelevant content and conflict of interest. Referred to other sites for explanation. These are initial impressions resulting from the experience. Conclusions based on the evidence: 1. A team of people guards the contents against perceived inappropriate entries. 2. This team takes action against entries without due process. 3. The content of the site: a. Good historical review from popular perspective. b. Little discussion of neoteric descriptions from emerging perspectives. 4. Actions of the team imply a proprietary interest in the content. Questions concerning the controls generated by experience: 1. Are these persons real or pretend? 2. Are these persons deleting entries acting alone or for hidden interests? 3. Is someone hiring the control resources these changes represent? 4. Do the apparent controlling interests have a hidden agenda in manipulation of the content? 5. What is the best means for revealing the answers to these questions? a. Submit to their assumed authority and engage to whatever extent permitted. b. Seek information on the persons and their roles outside the site venue. c. Engage in continued impersonal offensive/defensive behavior and note the results. 6. Is continued effort to discover the characteristics of this site worth the effort? Kengelhart (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

So what can I do for you? --Leivick (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Glenn

You marked the wiki I made for the Fleet Reserve Association for speedy deletion. I can't for the life of me understand why. You show a page that has the same history on it! Well of course it does so does every other branch page that got it from the main site. They are all supposed to have the same history because they are all part of the FRA which I'm a member of. The FRA helps veterans and active duty personnel from the Marines Coast Guard, and Navy with the VA and other issues that effect their quality of life. When you do a search for a list of veterans organizations the FRA had no info or link to the hompage. I put on there the groups history and a link to the homepage. Now a veteran looking for help finds a blank page again. You sited a branch as being the source and reason when that branch took the history, as every branch does, from the main site. This makes no sence at all!!

The article was deleted as a copyright infringement. It was clear the article was copied directly from another website. I am not really sure what you mean when you say that I sited "a branch as being the source," but content on Wikipedia must be user created not copied from other websites. All this appears moot as it looks like the article has been recreated and is no longer a copyright violation. --Leivick (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not moot at all! The website you used to say it was copyright infringement copied the work themselves from the main website. The website you found was a branch of the main group. ALL the branches have the same exact history on them. I pointed the wiki to the main website that was the originator of the history. The wiki was a work in progress for the copyright owners that you tried to destroy before even asking what was going on. Its my fist wiki and I was making it for a group veterans group I belong to. How is that copyright infringement? I did not say I created it, and I pointed it to the original source!

Ok let's try to straighten this out. If the website referred to in the speedy deletion tag (which was added by another user) was in fact copied from another website than the the article was still a copyright violation, just from a different website. Wikipedia articles cannot be copies of an original source unless that source is in the public domain (even if you represent the copyright holder). I hope this is clear, don't hesitate to ask if you have anymore questions. --Leivick (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ana Free

Hello, I am fairly new at the Wikipedia and a non native english speaker. You checked the Ana Free (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_Free) article yesterday which was suggested for speedy deletion by a user and it was declined. The very same user now requested the deletion of the page due to missing neutral sources about the notability. Initially the article had many links to independent sites (You tube, a video view counter script, myspace, 2 fan sites and Radio station sites). Those links where removed by another user a few days back. Beeing new into the Wikipedia and having my language handycap I was wondering if you could help and give some advise here. Are those links (can be found in the history of the page last version on 10.07.2008 13.20) allowed and considdered neutral and why is that user who suggested the site for deletion so keen on having the article deleted? Thank You! TB-Al-x —Preceding comment was added at 16:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it looks like those links do not meet WP:RS. Youtube view counts, fansites and blogs do not establish notability. In order for the article to survive, we would need quality sources from established publications. Take a look at the reliable sourcing policy and let me know if you have any other questions. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

ShadowSpear Special Operations Edits

Hello, I was in discussions with another admin prior to you deleting ths article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ShadowSpear_Special_Operations&action=edit) He warned me the first time (please see the discussion page). I rewrote it to include the stated importance. You stated that it lacked "a reason stating its importance", but it was revised to make this point clear. I would appreciate it if you would recheck the article, as I made the adjustments that the other administrator told me to make. Rngr223 (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, normally new sections are added to the bottom of the page so I missed this one. The article still didn't assert any real notability. All it really said was that it was going to be a reliable source on Special Ops. If you can provide a reliable independent source per WP:RS that discusses this website, I would be happy to restore the article for you. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Sir, http://www.specialoperator.com has a featured article on its front page, written by a well known retired Army Special Forces Colonel. How many sources do you require? Thank you. Rngr223 (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well something from an established reliable source would make things clearer. It doesn't looks like specialoperator.com is a well known reliable source per WP:RS and "Reginald Weinheimer" gets zero google hits so the claim that he is well known doesn't really jive. I'm not saying that sources do not exist, but I have not been able to find any. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'm very disappointed to see the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier totally destroyed by you and one other, on the edge of vandalism, but I'm no stranger to disappointment. I had hoped to be able to complete it and then find someone to help me to perfect it so it would read encyclopedic. The interaction with Prime Minister Trudeau concurrent to the 3 Popes in 1878 was factual and prophetic, not fantasy as one editor wrote. I have copies obtained under the Access to Information Act of RCMP reports confirming the substance of those facts. How could they be posted as references or citations? Those incidents could have been re-worded rather than deleted. The Declaration on Remembrance Day 1985, in the presence of the Governor-General of Canada, Government Leaders, the Military, Ambassadors of the Nations and 25,000 people was Publicly declared and prophetic: "Hear O people and Nations, even to the ends of the Earth, the Word of the Lord God who is, and was, and is to come, The Almighty. The Lord has a controversy with the people. Do you do well to honour the dead, and yet, deny the God of the Living? Why do you follow the vain traditions of men, and make of no effect, the principles of God? You come here for one hour one day a year in a great show of public patriotism, and then forgetting, go back to work and make the same careless mistakes made by the generations prior to the 1st and 2nd World Wars. Hitler was killed, but it's his legacy that remains. A Soviet-American military-industrial complex consuming $trillions of dollars every year, holding the entire World hostage............" "Hostage" was the last word he said perched on a bus shelter roof, as police got up and grabbed his megaphone. He was arrested for shouting, causing a disturbance, convicted and fined $250. He appealed without a lawyer to the Supreme Court of Canada.[16][17][18] is exactly factual, prophetic and important, referenced and in Court documents. The world is in fact being held hostage to the War on terrorism subsequent to the prophecy. What further verification is required? Since I discovered the article April 19, approximately 2500 views were registered to the page from an average of 60 views a month for the two years previous. According to Wikipedia because they did not object is considered consent to the way it read. This paragraph from the article is significantly important and prophetic. "In 1981, Cormier hitchhiked from Ottawa to Whitehorse, Yukon to draw attention to Revelation 19:11 [2]. Newspapers across the country chronicled his journey, and twenty years later the world was stunned to witness 9/11 as described in Revelation 18. There was an off site link so a user could read directly 19:11 and 9/11 from Revelation themselves. Even the references were deleted. It requires hindsight to know if prophecies are fulfilled. This is certainly controversial, and some people can not and will not accept the facts. This could have been edited to be more encyclopedic in style rather than deleted. I admit some some information was superfluous and that could have been corrected. I am a newbie, and the editors are respected members and Administrators of the Wikipedia community. Do I have any options left? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok I will definitly give you a break as a newbie, no problem there. However you should give me a little credit as an experienced editor and give a thought to the possibility taht I don't make edits hap hazardly or vandalize and I maybe, just maybe I am right in this case. You have a very clear conflict of interest as you are the subject of the article and believe you are a prophet, this makes it very difficult if not impossible for you to write a neutral encyclopedia article on yourself. You must understand that even if you believe something is a fact (you are prophet, the world is being held hostage to the war on terrorism) others may disagree. What you wrote was more along the lines of an autobiography. Much of what I deleted was either unverfiable from relaible sources(the jobs you worked at during your life and how you felt about them or the content of your speeches), your ownoriginal research and sythesis (the veracity of your prophecies) or so far from neutraly worded that it was unsalvagable. If you read the policies that I have linked to you will understand what was wrong with the article in its prior state, you may also want to take a look at how other quality biography articles are written. As for the number of hits on the aritcle page, it has nothing to do with consent, just because someone doesn't complains doesn't mean that the article is endorsed by 2500 people. Page hits hold no weight in content debates. As a side note 60 hits a month is by far the lowest hit count on the biography of a living person I have ever seen. In regards to you final question: Your options at this point are to continue down the dispute resolution path, leave the article as it is or neutrally expand it with verifiable and reliable sources and accept changes made by editors without a conflict of interst. If you choose the latter, I would suggest editing here for a while before returning to your own biography. If you were to edit articles not directly related to you, but in your sphere of interst, you would learn much about how things work here. Writing owns own encyclopedia article, is probably the most difficult thing to do on Wikipedia, but for some reason it is the first thing many people attempt. Good luck editing in the future. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sincere thanks for the notice on my talk page and I will comply. Naturally I respect you and the administrators experience but user talk is where any conflict is resolved, is that not so? Anyone putting themselves in my place would know and understand the joy and excitement of finding out someone that was almost a casual encounter two years ago started a web page on you, and you just discover it April 19. I have not been able to reach the administrator who created the article for some time. I suspect he forgot all about creating this and two years later, out of the blue, I contact him saying I'm back! He has other priorities and even my friends aren't interested as I am because they already know many of the incidents. That's natural and I accept that. I had no one to help develop the article. I admit the article contained much supporting information but I was thinking people would be interested in understanding the influencing factors of the life. To be honest, I have to admit I was gloating a little with this story. "During days off between shift rotation, he toured BC and Washington State. One day while walking by the docks in Vancouver, he ran into the former Commanding Officer of HMCS Donnacona in Montreal. He was now in command of HMCS Oriole (KC 480), the Canadian Navy's sleek, sailing ketch, and invited Cormier aboard as his civilian guest for a week long cruise. The word was in 2nd year training, the select few Officer Cadets in third year training chosen to serve on the Oriole were privileged and accepted by the Good ol' boy network. It was a joy for Cormier to leisurely enjoy the spectacular scenery as his former classmates did all the work." Being aware of a perceived conflict of interest, can you admit I made the attempt to be as neutral as possible considering the circumstances? The encounters with Prime Minister Trudeau are unembellished, trying to keep them as simple as possible. I have copies of RCMP records of those times with the specific incidents that were in the article. How can the fact of how I got into the position of directly handing him letters without middlemen the last 7 years he was PM be known and understood? That was prophetic work. How can those incidents be converted to encyclopedic language? Do I have to mail them to Wikipedia as confirmation of the facts? Will that make a difference as far as proof and citations? I sensed yesterday the article would be edited beyond any point of recognition as to what was there so I copied it. Yesterday I was feeling depressed, overwhelmed and defeated by what you and Kingturtle did. Today is a new day and I feel stronger. Most people reading the article will not go to history or even to the Discussion so they will have no clue what you did. The article is the article. Is there an express Wikipedia rule that says I can not place the original article in the Discussion for a real discussion? Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the deal, you have led an interesting life which may make a great story, however many of the details you wrote in the article are not fit to be put on Wikipedia because their significance and verifiability is not confirmed by reliable source (please read this page carefully). As example of a source that does not meet WP:RS lets use the RCMP records. Sources like these are usually classified as primary sources, in order for us to use them in any significant way, we would need a reliable secondary source to use them as a reference for an article or book about you, than we could use the article or book as a reference for the Wikipedia article about you (encyclopedias are tertiary sources). As for the talk page issue, it isn't going to happen, there is not a specific rule against posting historical versions of an article on a talk page, but it clearly violates the spirit of WP:TALK. You are of course welcome to post specific selected quotes for discussion. However I will reiterate what kingturtle said on your talk page and encourage you to recuse yourself from editing your own biography at least until you get a good grasp of policy and how things get done here. In all honesty I have seen this happen a dozen time before, when a user expands or creates their own bio and then finds it torn apart by well intentioned editors, it can't be fun for you, but unfortunately that is how Wikipedia works and that is also why we have guidlines like WP:COI. Just to emphasis my advice I will say it once more: edit for a while, learn how things work here. Start small, fix some issue or add references on topics that interest you but aren't directly related to you. Once you learn the ropes here, it will be literally hundreds of times easier and less stressful to deal with this sort of thing. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Daniel, I agree with the 2 or 4 of you engaging in this discussion. The article does need major reworking. That is not the issue for me. The issue now is how it can be improved to meet Wikipedia standards. If you read kingturtles talk, I told him even before the article was decimated I would recuse myself even though I know it it not forbidden but discouraged. The history will show I honoured my word with one exception, the images I restored to the article for reasons explained on kingturtle's talk. He removed them and I have chosen to accept that for now. From my POV you are imposing censorship on the other members of Wikipedia. The images, as they are tagged, conform to Wikipedia requirements. You will not even let other members see them, let alone offer an opinion in the dispute. Even as a newbie I can see that. That attitude is similar to the probation I was put on in 1977.

I also have a different POV reading the words of WP: TALK. Putting the removed article to Discussion is actually living up to the spirit and it says so in the letter: Share material: The talk page can be used to store material from the article which has been removed because it is not verified, so that time can be given for references to be found. New material can sometimes be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article. Let the other members offer an opinion. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really want to get involved with the image issue as my fair use knowledge is limited. As for the talk page, posting some parts of the article is fine as long as they are posted along with suggestions for improvement and verification. Dumping an entire old version of an article on the talk page is not ok as it really doesn't help improve anything and to some it might seem like an end run around the deletion of unverifiable, original research, peacock terms etc. If you want, you can post certain sections with suggestions as to how to improve them, but posting the entire article isn't going fly. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Re your last entry in Discussion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier, I have recused myself from making any more edits to the article. I can only hope other editors will have the interest to examine the Discussion page and the history of the article to see what you have removed, cleaning up any peacock terms and restore to the article what they consider suitable encyclopedic NPOV information. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• You were a participant in removing 95% of the content in the article. This was left in "In 1986, to complete his Canada-wide mission, he hitchhiked East to Quebec and the Maritimes.[7][8][9][10]", It may have been an oversight, but that makes no sense without restoring this "In 1981, Cormier hitchhiked from Ottawa to Whitehorse, Yukon to draw attention to Revelation 19:11 [2]. Newspapers across the country chronicled his journey........" I have recused myself from editing the article. Would you please restore this to the article with the references also removed? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Conflict Resolution

With the passage of time and away from the heat of the moment, I just want to let you know that reviewing your postings, I agree with most of what you said. Being new to how thing work around here, I appreciate even your tone, explaining it from a teachers experience to a new student. The article did/does needs serious work to bring it up to Wiki standards. I'm hopeful this will happen now that Kingturtle listed it on the RFCbio list. I have recused myself from editing the article, but remain active in the talk. Thanks. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• This was posted to J Milburn talk toady

Good Day J! I've been accused at times of wearing my emotions on my sleeve and yesterday I showed that by changing this section header as a tangible display. I went to bed happy, pleased that after such a long discussion started by the images being removed, we, personally, had passed a threshold as it were. I still believe that, so you can imagine my surprise and disappointment to wake up and find the images deleted, not by you. When I went to bed the dispute over the image "Second police warning for God's emissary" was ended with a Keep consensus and a different tag noting this. That is gone as well which I don't understand. I had assured you the FUR tag was only a temporary measure. This dispute within Wikipedia required my immediate focus. If the article was in the top 100 list, I am confident there would have been a consensus to keep both images. This was more difficult with such a smaller number of users involved in the discussion. My optimism was restored when Kingturtle listed the article in the RFCbio list. Nothing! I have been pleading for someone to restore the information about the 1981 trip to Whitehorse, Yukon with the verification newspaper references removed from the article. Nothing! I am seriously considering abandoning Wikipedia to the neutral netherworld as not being worth my time and effort. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Patience is the key here. There is no rush. In all honesty there are quite a few editors aware of this article, but unfortunately cleaning it up is a very difficult task and I am not suprised that no one has done it yet. Asking editors to do it usually doesn't work, this is a voluteer project and people tend to do what interests them and arn't all that exicited about taking requests. My advice at this point is to get to know Wikipedia by editing it, I have said this several times before, but it is the best advice I can give you. Once you get a good grip about how to write quality articles, it wouldn't be too big a deal for you to come back and edit your own. Just keep in mind that other editors are much more likely to be able to be neutral and objective when it come to your biography. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Joel Widzer

Please explain the tags you added to the Joel Widzer page. I understand that you have had problems with this page in the past. It is my understanding that you were abusive in the matter. I hope this can be handled with dignity. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reagan0005 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Sorry I meant to write that there was some abuse—I didn’t mean to accuse you of being abusive--reagan (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a number of references to the Joel Widzer article, therefore I removed the tag. Thanks--reagan (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I should have looked earlier, but it is not clear that Reagan0005 has notified you of the complaint he filed against you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Joel Widzer. -- Donald Albury 12:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for that succinct post. — Writegeist (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Eliphas Dow

... can I get a copy this article I wrote and got deleted? I used a newspaper from the 1800's and someones webpage used it also. so,it lookes like I violated a copywrite issue. I would like a copy and do a complete rewrite. I am researching all the death penalty cases in New Hampshire. the supreme court is trying a case that NH might execute someone for the first time in almost 50 years. Slulek (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Category sort

I have made a small change on your userpage ,so that the category is sorted properly instead of "U" for "User:" . Hope you won't mind.-- Tinu Cherian - 07:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Crossingpoint

Perhaps you'd like to clarify the reasons as to why this specific article actually asserts notability, as I fail to see where it does to be frank with you, and judging by your declines for deletion with some other articles, feel you are not actually equipped to deal with handling deletion requests. Take your reasons for declining the deletion of Mikey Chan as a prime example - someone has claimed this person is best known for collaborating with a bunch of musicians that meet the notability criteria so well they actually don't even have their own Wikipedia article. An article with a bunch of unverified, unnotable statements does not actually establish notability, believe it or not. LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing with CSD is that notability does not need to be established, it just needs to be asserted take a look at criteria A7 at WP:CSD. The article contains reference to journalists defining this musicians genre which indicates that sources exist which would establish notability. You are of course welcome to nominate the article for deletion through WP:AFD. --Leivick (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

bimmerwitz

Hi, you left a message for me regarding wiki articles and COI's. I think that (I don't know if you are the right person for this) the appropriate thing to do would be to delete the page...probably the sooner the better. thanks for maintaining wiki standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bimmerwitz (talk • contribs) 16:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone else already deleted it. --Leivick (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Car Shipping

Surprised at your removal of the speedy tag on this article. Did you see my justification for placing it on the talk page? Ros0709 (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the links are spammy, but the article in general is not blatant spam, for the most part it dispassionately describes the topic without mentioning any company whatsoever. Keep in mind that as there is little oversight the criteria for speedy deletion are much stricter than those at AfD. You are of course always welcome to nominate the article for deletion. Hope that is satisfactory. --Leivick (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

On reflection I believe you are quite correct. I do believe this article is unsuitable for inclusion as it is but it needs the debate of an AfD to decide its fate. Ros0709 (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of our entry

I am confused as to your immediate deletion of an entry we were just starting to work on for the Granulosa Cell Tumour Foundation New Zealand.

We had basically just started the entry when you delete it as "blatant commercialism". There is no "commercialism" involved, we are a non-profit charity just like others you allow (such as the American Cancer Society). So what's the deal?

Powel Crosley (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted under the G11 criteria of WP:CSD. Advertising does not necessarily need to be commercial in nature. Based on the text the article appeared to be created solely to promote the entity in question. Please take a look at our policy regarding conflict of interest at WP:COI as well as the FAQ regarding articles on businesses you are involved in at WP:BFAQ. You should also read the policy on the notability criteria required in order for an article to be posted at WP:N. I realize this is a lot to read, but it will definitely help you understand how things work here. Let me know if you have any further questions. --Leivick (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Your Opinion

Daniel my Brother,

Being among the very very few editors/contributers who have been discussing and editing the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier to the point it is now, and how it was before your contributions, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ray_Joseph_Cormier&diff=220975243&oldid=220971714, do you have an opinion on this discussion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kingturtle#Images_Copyright_and_Free DoDaCanaDa (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• You had an opinion on this. What a difference a day, a week or a month makes! As you may have noticed, I withdrew from further discussion from this site after the disputations over this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MacLean%27s.jpg that Kingturtle removed from the article.

World events will now bring into clearer focus the relevancy of it. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

How so? Please be more specific. --Leivick (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

you looks cool

You are looking cool person. In wikipedia there is many excited person. I am sorry for 'educated'.--Kaish (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Webpage Deletions

Daniel, I created a wikipage for The Salvation Army Chicago Metropolitan Division twice, and you deleted it twice. Please tell me what it is that I'm doing wrong so that the wikipage is not deleted. The Salvation Army and a number of it's sub divisions have wikipages already created and they have not been deleted. Please advise on what I need to do.

Thank you.
Angela Vaughn
Web Marketing Manager
The Salvation Army Chicago Metropolitan Division
Anjelyk1 (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)anjelyk1

Please take a look at our policy on conflict of interest as well as the FAQ on creating articles about your own business at WP:COI and WP:BFAQ respectivly. The article was deleted under criteria 11 of our speedy deletion policy, being that it was clearly written solely to promote an entity. If you have any other questions let me know. --Leivick (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

credit goes to you

thanks for editting Jinggangshan University it looks better than past. Actually I was postphoning that job. You made significant changes to that article now the article looks well. If you would you like to tell me how can I improve the article as wikipedia wanted quality. I am totally new in this wikipedia I dont know many thing that is my main problem. If you tell me I will be grateful to you.--Kaish (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hollywood Blvd Cinema Bar & Eatery

Yesterday I created a page for the Hollywood Blvd Cinema Bar & Eatery. I am unsure about the reason for the deletion, as it mimics the format of other theatre chains' pages almost exactly. I did not intend to create a page for mere advertising purposes, but wanted to create one as an informational tool. The owner of this facility has done many great things to change the movei-going experience, and has also contributed greatly to the Hollywood legacy. Please specify the reasons why this page wa deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HollywoodBlvd (talk • contribs) 14:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted under criteria 11 of WP:CSD. The article was clearly created with the intention of promoting the entity in question. WHile the format was similar to other articles, most of the content read like ad copy. Take a look at our policies on conflict of interest at WP:COI as well as the FAQ for business at WP:BFAQ. In short if you have a personal of financial connection with the company in question you probably will find it difficult to produce a neutral and objective article on the subject. If you have any other questions please let me know. --Leivick (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

re: Block on User:Dr. Oak

Leivick, greetings,

Can you explain why you blocked this user? I know him to be a new user, but I am a bit shocked that he is being blocked as a sockpuppet. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Oak is a sock puppet of User:Mctrain and others. He is attempting to add information concerning the Barbaro family and its alleged connections to an alleged alumnus of Fenwick by the name of Vitus Barbaro. He is one in a long string of single purpose acounts who have claimed that all of the sourcing checks out on the Barbaro family page and have attempted to add information regarding Vitus Barbaro. I can't say I completely understand what the hoax is, however the acount is a clear sockpuppet. --Leivick (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation .... aside from edit history, has the usercheck been done? I do understand that there can be editing patterns and such, but I would also hate to see someone with a coincidental history to be blocked. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't block if I wasn't absolutely sure. Take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Societyfinalclubs for a long list of similar confirmed sockpuppet accounts. I don't see a need for a check user at this point, although if you feel there should be additional oversight, I would be fine with you posting on WP:ANI or elsewhere. Let me know if anything else is unclear, transparency is very important, but unfortunately this is a very muddy issue. --Leivick (talk) 04:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your patience in this issue .... clearly this has been a difficult article to watchdog, and "muddy", if anything, appears to be an understatement. I tend to be a "law and order" type, and I hope you will understand: I had been working with this editor for a few weeks, and this hit me pretty hard. He had been asking me to get involved with editing the Barbaro article, and now I feel pretty used. I was unaware of the Exeter Academy work. Thank you for your efforts in keeping things clean. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. I think the source of the issue is Vitus Barbaro. Take look at what Dr. Oak added about him on the Fenwick page and I think you will agree that this is the core of the hoax. Art historian at major institute/aerospace engineer who worked on the Ferrari Enzo, but gets zero google hits... hmm. I hope to work with you again in the future. On a completely unrelated matter, have you ever considered becoming an admin? You seem to have quite contribution history, although I only looked at it for a momment. --Leivick (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words .... I have only been formally editing for about a year. Most of my early edit history was anti-vandal work. Only in the past few months have I gotten into writing and reference work. I have perused RFA's, and it seems that it is very difficult to get to be an administrator with only anti-vandal work. I have been spending more and more time learning the ropes .... I just learned how to upload images and deal with the copyright stuff a few weeks ago .... I have hung out at AFD (and earned the ire of a few editors), and I have hung at at wikiquette alerts and tried to help out there .... I'm not sure I want to go through an RFA yet, though I hope in the future I will have more of a background to make an honest effort at it. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

about the troll(internet) article

Hi Daniel, My name is Liroy and I want you to review my editation of the article, please don't remove it. I am open to fixing it up to the quality and standard that both of us will be happy with.

Cheers

THE GIVER —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liroy THEGIVER (talk • contribs) 11:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove it for a second time, it looks like someone else did. In any case it will need to have reliable third party sourcing if it is to remain. Take a look at WP:RS and WP:V to learn how all this works and let me know if you have any questions. --Leivick (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Other User's Comments

Re: [1] If you notice from the page history, it was my own comments that I changed. The template generated text wasn't quite on, so I tweaked the output. Arakunem^Talk 22:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Oops, sorry. The indent made it look like you were adresing that to me. My bad. :) Arakunem^Talk 22:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I hope it is clear to the IP who I was referring to, but I do see how it could be misunderstood. --Leivick (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Company profile

You just deleted the above that I nominated (thanks) - when about to warn the user I noticed their talk page User_talk:Jihengman contains similar content. I'm not sure about policy on user talk pages, if it does need something done about it could you fix? - Ta - Hunting dog (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I will look into it. If a userpage is being used for spam than it can be tagged just like any other page. Good working with you. --Leivick (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

SMErobot

Hello Daniel,

why did you delete the SMErobot article?

I do not agree at all with your reproach of "balant advertising".

I think the article is/was quite neutral and comparable to other articles about "EU research projects" see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Project_(EU)

Also wrote you an email about this issue. Maybe we can improve the article a bit together.

Always thankful for some help.

Best regards

Thilo GPSstuttgart (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The article read like advertising in my opinion as well as the opinion of another admin who deleted a previous identical version and two different users who tagged the article for deletion. The article used ad copy language like "the need" "breakthrough" and "innovation" and appeared to simply extol this projects virtue and relevancy. My suggestion would be to create the article again this time as a stub (similar to the article you suggest as comparable). Just write a couple of sentences referenced from reliable sources like the Economist (more are needed for the article to be kept long term). Eventually you or others can expand it. However I should first point you to our policies on verifiability, reliable sources, and conflict of interest. If you have a personal or financial connection to this company I suggest you also read WP:BFAQ and WP:ASFAQ and suggest that you not edit the article in question. Beyond that please let me know if you have any questions as I would be happy to help. --Leivick (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Daniel,

could you still send me the original source text that you deleted? I lost my latest back-up. I will then write an totally new article: much shorter, more references like the Economist, etc. But still it would be nice to use some of the original text (and links, categories, etc.) and to not have to think of all that over again. Again, SMErobot is no private company but a public EU-granted research project. Thank you very much, GPSstuttgart (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to. I will create user subpage for you at User:GPSstuttgart/draft here you can work on the article without any chance of it being deleted. When you have something let me or another editor know and it can be looked over and than recreated. --Leivick (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Taraji Mustafa page

why you deleted this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taraji_Mustafa >>Taraji is well known activist and fighter for the people of Darfur and for restoring democracy and rule of law in the Sudan. She is also one of the important advocates of women rights in that part of the world. I hope you would correct this mitake and restore her page again. thank you very much. Saifulnassr.M.Ahmed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.107.116.232 (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

When I deleted the article it contained no content and was simply a link to a website. I see that at one point the article did contain more text, but I am at this point not sure if the subject meets the criteria laid out at WP:N. If you can provide reliable sourcesthat discuss this subject, I would be happy to restore the article. --Leivick (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposing the NewsCred page to be restored

Hi Daniel - I proposed to have the NewsCred article restored now that the company has launched publicly and was covered in notable, mainstream press such as BBC, Reuters and BusinessWeek. Can you take a look? If you restore it, I can improve it and add the links to the notable sources. ==Deletion review for NewsCred== An editor has asked for a deletion review of NewsCred. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Shafqatislam (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shafqatislam (talk • contribs) 09:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, I've userfied the article, hope that's ok. If not, then just revert me. PhilKnight (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Harpy deletion?

Someone has revived the Harpy (Puyo Puyo) page; I've created a talk page on the issue. I'm in favor of deletion, this seems like fancruft to me Poobslag (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My User page nominated for deletion?

No comments were left, and I don't know what someone objects to. Any ideas? (Regushee (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

I don't understand. I don't see any indication that your userpage was nominated for deletion. Please clarify. --Leivick (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm really confused, because after contacting you, the notice has dissappeared. Thank you, I think (Regushee (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

Mclaren F1

Dear Daniel J. Leivick, would it be possible to attain protection for the "Mclaren F1" article on the English Wikipedia?

Over the years that I've edited and picked at it (as 'Corge' and this nick) I have never come across an edit from an unregistered user who actually contributed any useful information or useful edit whatsoever -- however, arbitrary IPs come and frequently vandalize the article.

By the way, I noticed you deleted the header in the Performance subsection from when I recently rearranged (when I rewrote and added the track times, braking, cornering, etc) it and initially wrote it (what you refered to as the 'disclaimer'); you wrote in the comment that performance was empirical -- I believe that is exactly the point I attempted to make when I said that performance is best derived from track times set by professional drivers -- i.e. empirical? :-)

Posix memalign (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I know how you feel about IPs and protection and basically agree, however it is really not acceptable to permanently semi-protect a page unless it is recieving high levels of vandalism that cannot be dealt with by reverting (right now it doestn't look like it is being vandalized more than a couple times a day). Although the majority of IP contributions are non constructive some IP content is helpful and it is important to make the system as open as possible in order to encourage contribution. Most of us including myself started out as IP contributers. The page in question is watched by many people and I don't think vandalism usually lasts long. My suggestion is just to keep reverting, including IPs changing statistics without explanation (my pet peave). As for the content I removed, I can try to explain what I meant more clearly. Performance sections should include statistics on a number of performance areas. Laptimes are just one type of performance (albeit one that is partially derived from other types although it is largely dependent on tire selection) and we don't need to throw out the opinion that one type is more important than the others. Hope that answers your questions, feel free to drop by if you have any other concerns. --Leivick (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Fábio Pereira da Silva

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Fábio Pereira da Silva. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. You were one of four admins who deleted this article. I got the request to UNSALT and have listed at DRV since I'm not comfortable enough with WP:ATHLETE to make the call and wanted community discussion since that's what resulted in its deletion. TravellingCari 21:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

On reflection

Daniel my brother,

I appreciate your new tone on reflection of the new section, ´You saw it here first´ I started on your talk page. However I am disappointed you deleted the section. I don´t understand why you did this. I thought the tone was mostly neutral, non partisan and against no one. Just a friendly notice.

From your point of view in responding to me, you interpret my posting as being ¨postdiction¨. This is what I posted to Ground Zero talk on July 3, two and a half months ago.

The global system is just entering the time when this line from Rev.18 will be seen and believed: And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buys their merchandise any more.

Just for discussion, in my point of view, the statement was prediction. The global reality is the money system is on the precipice, and the buying and selling of merchandise will stop if corrective actions are not taken quickly. This is conforming exactly along the lines I wrote July 3 on this site.

Accepting as sincere your offer of help, you might visit here User_talk:Jade_Knight#You_saw_it_here_first It is an appeal for help to build a notable Article.

Peace

Ray DoDaCanaDa (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That sock/troll I mentioned at ANI

Could you block him, then? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of Rajendra Pachauri's comment on Tata Nano.

Hello Daniel J. Leivick. I found that you reverted my changes on Tata Nano. It was IPCC which shared Nobel Prize not Mr Rajendra Pachauri, he only received the Nobel Prize on part of IPCC. And Mr Pachauri's comment came days before the car and its specifications were revealed. He was worried that Nano will not do well in tailpipe emission performance, but Nano's tailpipe emission performance exceeds regulatory requirements. So his comment is no longer relevant. Kindly reconsider your change.

p.s. As you may or may not have seen, the Nano article uses lots of quotes from various media sources. What are your thoughts on that ? Anmol.2k4 (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the source, I don't think it is incorrect to say that Pachauri is a nobel prize winner as he accepted the award for the IPCC. The source seems to say that he was more concerned with the vehicles low cost and high production numbers rather than each vehicles specific emissions. I still feel the reference is valid unless one can be provided saying the Pachauri is no longer concerned about the Nano. You are however correct about the block quotes, many of them should be paraphrased. --Leivick (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Korcan Celikay

Hey mate,

Sorry for disturbing but i'm concerned with a little topic which's related to a footballer profile. Korcan Çelikay, whose article was deleted by you is a player who is a pro player and played competitive football last season at 3rd division of Turkey football leagues. He played Tepecik Belediyespor, located in Istanbul. Celikay is now back to his Besiktas JK, and is the third keeper of team, even now is the second choice as the first keeper Rüştü Reçber is injured.

I plan to re-create the article with various web link articles. Could you please share your opinion if you'd some time?

Cheers mate,

Umi1903 (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The vandal of Shi'a articles is back.

And here he is! --Enzuru 17:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Military equipment of Mexico vandal back

Hi, 207.99.246.34 is back mass reverting all of the weapons into his category. Koalorka (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the category still states it is for weapons "operated by Mexico" which as far as I can tell most (but not all) the pages the category was added to fit. I think we are dealing with an editor who is operating with good faith so it would probably be best for you to try and talk to them. Right now it seems to me that there isn't a set system for how weapons are categorized by operational use. If we look at a page like M2 Browning we see categories like "Weapons of Norway", "Weapons of Sweden", "Operational weapons of Australia" etc. Personally I don't think this is a bad method of categorization and if it was the standard, the M2 Browning page would belong in the category "Weapons of Mexico." This looks like a job for something like WP:GUN, you might want to bring it up there. --Leivick (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

222 South Main

Daniel,

Greetings! I am just curious as to why the page 222 South Main was deleted. The building is of significance to Utah as it is the first LEED certified high-rise in the state. In addition, the only other buildings of a comparable caliber in Salt Lake City are the Wells Fargo Centerand the LDS Church Office Building and both of those buildings have Wiki pages.

Thanks,

Sorensenpower (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted, because it was written in a promotional tone and thus met WP:CSD criteria 11. I believe that this building will probably be appropriate for an article at some point, but if I remember correctly, it has not been built nor has it actually been given LEED certification so those claims are speculative at this point. My suggestion would be to recreate the article as a short stub, listing just a couple of facts supported by a independent source(s) that meets WP:RS. I would be happy to help, so let me know if you have any questions. --Leivick (talk) 07:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give it another shot and let you know if I have any additional questions. Thanks! Sorensenpower (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Users have renamed articles in error

Hello,

Under this category Category:Front wheel drive vehicles under the "u" listing, I found two users listed in the category. I think this is wrong because the category is vehicles with front wheel drive, not users who have front wheel drive vehicles. I don't know how to fix this problem, and I don't want to be accused of vandalism. Can you investigate if the articles have been accidently changed? Thanks (Regushee (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

It looks like these are sub pages where users are developing articles. I don't think it is too big a deal, but you could mention it to the users involved and see what they think. --Leivick (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

hi

I have a few Wiki admin questions for you... can we talk by phone ???

thanks very much.

seems spokey, sorry, but there are erroneous remarks on a business page of mine that I would like to discuss with someone, but I'm not sure who to contact...

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.170.51 (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I take care of all of my Wikipedia business on Wikipedia or via my wiki specific email if confidentiality is required. Feel free to ask whatever you like here or if privacy is an issue you may email me by using the "email this user" tab on the left of the screen when you are on my user page. If you have legal concerns you will need to contact the [[Wikimedia Foundation, but if this just involves erroneous info I don't see why we can't solve it here or through email. --Leivick (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The Return of the Barbaro hoaxer

They’ve got a new nick and a new variable IP. See the latest additions at [2] Edward321 (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I will keep an eye on things. For now it doesn't look like there is anything actionable. --Leivick (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• The Vitus Barbaro hoaxer is back, using the 63.xx variable IP. Take a look at the edit history of Vision Industries Edward321 (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Looks like it all got reverted. The information added to the vision idustries page appears to be entirely unverfiable so I don't see any problem reverting on sight in the future. --Leivick (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the hoaxer's been rangeblocked for another month [3]. Edward321 (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Koprider

Koprider (talk · contribs) hasn't in fact vandalised since I gave him that test4... Not that I particulary care in this case, but just for pedantry's sake. --fvw* 10:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Opps... looks like I didn't see that you reverted that user's last two vandal edits instead of just the last one. Oh well I guess this user only got 20 vandal edits instead of the 21 they were do. No worries. --Leivick (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Message from WikiProject Alien

Hello!

You are receiving this message because you have previously identified yourself as a member of WikiProject Alien, either because your name appears on the Participants page or because you have placed the project userbox on your user page.

There is currently a discussion on the project's talk page regarding a proposal to merge the project into a task force of either WikiProject Horror or WikiProject Science Fiction. As a project member, your input would be greatly appreciated in this discussion. Do you think the project ought to be merged into a task force, or remain separate? If you are in favor of a merger, which WikiProject do you think should be the parent? Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alien#Task force merger.

Thank you. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

your block of User talk:DD2K

See User talk:DD2K. He is requesting an unblock, and is assuring us that he has read and understands the BLP policy, and will refrain from causing BLP problems. He is quite specific, and I think he is sincere here. Would you acede to an unblock at this point? If he returns to the same problems, we can always reblock him, and his chance of getting ANOTHER unblock would then be nil. Your thoughts? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and unblock with the caveat that this user not edit the Larry Johnson bio page or any topics with which they have a personal connection. I hope this is agreeable. --Leivick (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ed Decker

Good idea on Ed Decker. I was trying to clean it up, but that's probably best for now. I posted the removed text on the talk page in case reliable citations can be found. Best regards —Eustress ^talk 00:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. When the subject is apparently trying to write their own controversial bio it can get messy quick. --Leivick (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Not advertising...simply adding a link to information/sites that are relevant to the topic

Why are you removing my external links and threatening me with being blocked/blacklisted/etc.? Please explain to me how the addition of my link is any different from that of a chapter website link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greek Challenge Coins (talk • contribs) 23:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for Greek Challenge Coins catch...

Just wanted to thank you for catching the Greek Challenge Coins edits. While I doubt you'll need help with him, I'll be happy to chime in as well.Naraht (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No prob. --Leivick (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh

Why did you delete his words? It is his page, not Steele's or Emanuel's, yet you retained their words. The old history should be deleted, not the new clarifications. There is no reference to the cpac speech to which was the Steele commentary. The reader deserves a quoted explanation, not an "interpretation" of his utterances on the issue. Please reinsert the quote and delete the prior verbage; it's old news. thanx.

Furtive admirer (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The quote that you added was far to long for an encyclopedia article. The quotes form Steele and Emanuel are of an appropriate length. If you would like, feel free to quote a short (2-3 sentence) piece from Limbaugh or link to the complete transcript. Anything further should be discussed on the talk page. --Leivick (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Concering Bald_man_Martin

I made some in-text citation corrections to the Ed Schultz article, specifically in the "Evolution of of political views" section. The afformentioned individual alleged that I vandilized the page. As I mentioned, all I did was correct the citations in the article to MLA citation (I am familiar with AMA, Chicago-style, and other forms of citation. It appeared as if the author attempted to use MLA citation; hence I made the appropriate changes to the citation format). Moreover I provided a message on the discussion page about the minor changes. It should also be noted that Bald_man_Martin claims to hold several positions at Wikipedia (including as an administrator). I respectfully request that the charge of vandalism, if possible, be rescinded and that Bald_man_Martin has some action taken against him/her. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.70.154 (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Bald man Martin has been blocked indefinitely and is not an admin. Feel free to make whatever changes to the article you feel are appropriate. --Leivick (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone was given false "final warnings" by someone imitating an admin named 'Bald man Martin'. When the user deleted these tags, you temporarily blocked them. The user request to be unblocked but was denied by 'Tin Whistle Man' who is the new identity of this 'Bald man Martin'. Sounds a little bit unfair, at least a reasonable, intelligent person might say so! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakofujimato (talk • contribs) 10:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Bald man Martin has returned as 'Tin Whistle Man' and is presently causing more mayhem here. His "indefinite block" seems ineffective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakofujimato (talk • contribs) 10:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, can you please reassess your block of 24.62.100.100? This anon has been blocked (for being a sock puppet of Bald man Martin/Tin Whistle Man?), but I think he's an innocent bystander framed by the other user. Somno (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked. This seems like a clear mistake, and I felt that quick action was merited in this case because if I'd been framed and then it took a long time to clear up my block, I might well quit Wikipedia and we definitely don't want that in this case. If this user is someone else's sockpuppet feel free to reblock, but please when you block someone for block evasion or sockpuppetry, leave a block summary or a notice that clearly specifies the user you think they are linked to, it makes things much better for reviewing the blocks; and even proper sockpuppetry blocks are very likely to be challenged. Mangojuice^talk 13:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops definitely my mistake there. This user made a post on Bald Man Martins talk page just after he was blocked. I thought it was Bald Man trying to evade the block on an IP. I shouldn't have acted so quickly. --Leivick (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting Set To Completely Revamp The Dodge SRT-4 Page

Hello Daniel,

I've been doing minor edits on the Dodge SRT-4 page for quite some time now as you know and I've come to realize it needs a LOT of work in order to really meet the standards of some of the better automotive articles. I'm getting set to completely rewrite the article and try to source everything, but i'm not quite as 'friendly' with wiki programming as you are, so I was hoping maybe you would be able to give me a hand with it from time to time? As you know the page reads very choppy with a lot of undocumented information, most of it is true and I've been able to source it but like i said I'm not the best with the programming aspect. I know you've done work on the page in the past, and we didn't see eye to eye for awhile on the changes but I understood after reading some other automotive pages what needed to be done and I'd like to get started on it. Anyways, I'm fairly new to doing actual full blown editing so I hope all goes well. Hope you can give me a hand when you get the time. Thanks RTShadow (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to help. As it stands the page could use some work, but isn't to terrible a jumping off point (at least it has info boxes). From a syntax point of view, the <ref> (cited source) </ref> format is probably your best friend at this point. Let me know if you have any questions or need any help. If you could link to your sources, I would be able to do some of the writing myself. --Leivick (talk) 05:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No offense but how exactly is my version 'muddy'? I provided several sources that all basically state the same thing. Those sources are all independent of one another, they all state the same thing, which falls in line with what is allowed by wikipedia sourcing standards, there is no 'maybe' about it, he states that 'fanboi' mentality is being used, if you look at the changes he is making, he tried to use sources that previously he didn't want to use (allpar, he stated allpar was not an independent source) but then he decided that it was good to use when he could source it for a slower 0-60 and quarter mile time. His comments about the dynojet dyno are so completely off base. The dynojet is an industry standard. There is no 'maybe' about the hp of the SRT-4 being higher than the manufacturer base of 230, did you read those articles I posted? He has come right out and said he doesn't believe the whp claims, so what, that shouldn't be the test for what is or is not true, I allowed the 230 to remain just 'hp' instead of 'whp' and went about doing a lot of work to source independently to prove the dyno hp of the car. I have watched it in person, but unfortunately, I cannot use that, THAT is why I did all this work. He continues to use the word 'fanboi' then he complains 'don't make personal attacks' when in fact that is exactly what he does with the fanboi talk. I stand by what I said, that he is there not to make the page better but to make changes to make the vehicle worse than it is, he has not made one significant change to the page that is worthwhile unless he finds something that reduces any said ability or standard of the car, he ignores anything that substantiates the car whatsoever. The 230 wheel horsepower is an absolute fact, I don't know how many sources I have to find that state that the manufacturer claim is low, stating that it is just a 'claim' or 'fanboi' mentality is ridiculous, there are no scientific journals about car performance, therefore that is why wikipedia allows independent sources as long as they all come to the same conclusion. He calls me a 'fanboi', I think the actual situation here is that he is a 'hater', if we are going to stick with these sorts of terms.RTShadow (talk)

Here is how I see it. The problem is that both of you believe the other is acting in bad faith, when it is clear to me that both of you are trying to improve the page. One of the strong points about Wikipedia is that it allows individual biases to be tempered by others. My suggestion remains that you should bring it up on the talk page an come to a compromise regarding the wording. In my mind neither version is all that good. Yours assumes that a handful of dyno tests proves something for all SRT-4s, while Whalelover Frost's is probably too cautious. My suggestion for the sentence would be along these lines: "Several independent tests have produced results indicating that the SRT-4 produces significantly more horsepower than the manufacturer claims." Just the facts, no interpretation. By the way there are plenty of scientific journals on car performance (Like SAE International). Again this discussion belongs on the SRT-4 Talk page. --Leivick (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Hello, Daniel J. Leivick. You have new messages at Talk:Glenn Quagmire.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

87.69.177.35 (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Daniel J. Leivick. You have new messages at Talk:Glenn Quagmire.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

87.69.177.35 (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

I have found an online copy of a newspaper article that shows someone with a different name petitioned to have their name legally changed to "Count Vitus Sebastian Barbaro, Patrician of Venice" in 2004. While this is clear proof that Vitus Barbaro is a hoax, it does list the man's real name, so I'm unsure about whether it should be listed as evidence for the next time the hoax crops up. Edward321 (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you show me the link? --Leivick (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Link is here. [4] Edward321 (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it proves much one way or the other. What we have here is a committed sock puppeteer with a penchant for using misinformation, I'm not exactly sure this is a hoax in the traditional sense as I believe that the user thinks what they are writing is true. However I don't think there are privacy issues, it is posted in a newspaper and linked on the internet. --Leivick (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it proves Vitus Sebastian Barbaro is not a descendant of the Barbaro family or a Count, and that anything he has done before 2004 is fictitious. I'm uncertain if they think what they are writing is true, merely wish it was true, or are just extremely persistant. Edward321 (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well if you go back to all those old deletion debates like Skull and Crescent, when McTrain was raising a fuss, he actually refers to this link at aviosion.com, saying that it is common practice for people in nobility to change there names when they assume a title (he also says the whole reason his articles got deleted and labeled hoaxes is because people came to Wikipedia from aviosion in order to smear him), In any case, I don't see anything wrong with linking to it. --Leivick (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln Town Car Exec L

Since i was the one that actually invented this version of the town car i should know a little more than you about it. how can you just delete something based on your own hunch. lincoln will not ever admit to it but Royale made nearly 1000 of the extended town car before lincoln decided they ought to do it themselves. what proof do you need. Limosmyth (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:Limosmyth)Welcome to Wikipedia! To answer your questions, there were multiple problems with what you tried to add to the Lincoln Town Car , information on Wikipedia must meet our policy on verifiability found at WP:V, that is one must be able to independently verify all information through reliable independent sources. Information regarding what constitutes a reliable source can be found at WP:RS. You should also take a look at our policies on spam and conflict of interest at WP:SPAM and WP:COI as it appears that your only contributions so far have been attempts to add information and links related to your own company. I realize that this is a lot to read, but if you understand the structure here it will make editing much easier. Specifically the "proof" that would be needed to add the section you attempted to add to the Town Car article would be publication known for independence and reliability specifically stating that Lincoln drew on the Royal's design when it introduced the longer version of there vehicle, otherwise mentioning the actions of an independent company would undue weight in an article about a Lincoln vehicle. Please feel free to ask any questions if you need help editing in the future. --Leivick (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Daily Show (POV)

This article seems to me definitely POV. And I speak as one who started watching it in the US about 10 years ago. In the "airing" section there's a comment "please don't add your regional variations and local channels", or some such, this is definitely POV. I've refrained from adding it for now but I can't see how this can be regarded as anything but unduly US-centric; it's broadcast 4 times a week at 8.30pm in the UK i.e. prime time, I think that is notable (and I didn't add the POV tag, and agree that you shouldn't just walk away, but when, on going to edit, there are comments saying "If not american, please don't edit" (paraphrasing), well c'mon, what do you expect?

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You are of course welcome to bring your concerns up on the Daily Show talk page. I only reverted a drive by tag, probably not placed there in reference to the issues you are discussing. --Leivick (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that is justa guess on my part since the drive-by left no comment but personally I still think unduly POV; of course it is a US show etc. but I don't think that should exclude the fact it is syndicated. I've added a grumble to the talk page, probably badly written, but wanted your advice first in case you knew more about it.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

homemaker/housewife

you were right, to have to near identical articles is a pretty lame idea. I redirected homemaker to housewife, so now if you type homemaker or housewife, you end up at housewife.

My reasons were that housewife is used in all English speaking nations, while homemaker is exclusive to the US. There are more google hits for housewife than homemaker. Americans are not confused by the term housewife, but non-Americans may not be aware of the term. I had never used/heard the term before coming to wikipedia.

thanks

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Leivick (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am about to go to work but when I get back I think I will have a go at writing a section within the housewife article explaining about the non-gender specific terms. Homemaker deserves a mention, as does househusband and whatever terms I have never heard of. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I think that is why the article was where it was, Homemaker being a gender neutral term. This might be something that will need to be brought up on the talk page. --Leivick (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As much as I personally dislike gender neutral terms (something to do with me being old fashioned and British) I think that when they are commonly used, they are the best choice for articles - but only when they are commonly used. From my experience (and blatant OR) I know that policeman or WPC (woman police constable) is the most used term in the UK [5] but no one is going to be confused by the term police officer, and I am not so arrogant to assume that UK and US are the only English speaking nations in the world - therefore police officer is the sensible choice. Housewife/Homemaker to me is something very different, the term Housewife is still in use in the US (someone on the talkpage mentioned Desperate Housewives as an example) and the term Homemaker is not used in the UK, we tend to use Housewife/Househusband - google hits are in favour of using the term Housewife, to me these factors are far more important than a desire to use gender specific terms, especially when those terms are only commonly used in one nation. I'm sorry it seems as if I am bashing American Engilsh, I am a strong believer in American articles - American English and vice versa, the only times I have problems with American English is when it is forced on British articles, or when international articles seem to get Americanised. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe something like "Housewife/househusband" as a title would be best as it discusses both. It is a bit of a gray area. I do think the article should address the term homemaker and its history. I'm a little out of my depth in this area, but I believe it is some kind of invented word to avoid the pejorative nature of "housewife" and legitimize "homemaking" as a valid career option, but I could be wrong. --Leivick (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I can add my twon pennyworth (and my I suggest you copy this conversation to the article talk page?)

I tend to agree what "homemaker" seems a neologism designed for those two reasons; to be gender-neutral and to "legitimise" being a housewife. The term "male housewife" was once quite common in the UK (again OR there). To title an article "Housewife/househusband" I think is stupid as anyone searching for either will get neither; any suggestion of redirects in any case alleviates the problem and I would stick with "Homemaker".

I do disliker homemaker as although neologisms are coined all the time this seems rather particularly contrived. We had the perfectly good old-fashioned "helpmate" or "helpmeet" which while generally meaning the wife (in particular a housewife) could easily have had its meaning revived and extended to include males. On the subject of "other English", it also vaguely concerns me that "homemaker" could be conjectured by a non-native English speaker, or one for whom it is not in their language variety, to mean "housebuilder", "interior designer/decorator" or some such. While WP:DICT we are not a dictionary, it seems unnecessary through titles etc deliberately to send people up the garden path.

I am also kinda worried that Housewife launches almost imediately in the Lead into the housewife = woman argument, to me that would be better in a History/Etymology section and leave the Lead to say a housewife is a person who does not take full-time payed employment but spends time doing household chores, shopping, looking after the kids etc (of chouse I would not be so informal as that), maybe say about "two-job households" (?is that right term) or whatever. Again WP:DICT but it's just a lead-in.

In any case it seems perfectly acceptable to say "Stay-at-home dad", "Working mom", etc further down, (surely "stay-at-home parent"-- not really), and "working mom" (but not working dad, i.e. implying that either dads should work or housework is not work, anyway

It's all a bit confused if you ask me. It tries to be non-sexist while introducing sexist terms, if only to contrast them. Never easy. SimonTrew And please do not say "gender-specific" etc; gender is a term referring to grammar, not to people, for which "sex" is the appropriate word. Since English doesn't really have gender (arguably for pronouns) it's almost always wrong to use it to mean "sex". (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

One other option is to make a homemaker article, and have it deal specifically with the origins of the term and its usage, with a link to the housewife article? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly; that would best be done by a North American I guess. Is it true that in Japanese Kanji the term for "wife" is written "man house". I only learnt hiragana and katakana, it was just told me as an example, and was perhaps just an imaginary one.

I still think it would be best to try to rearrange "housewife" not to sprinkle the sex issue throughout the article, since that is not primarily what the article should be about.

We should probably move this to the article's talk rather than squat on (someone else's!) user talk. SimonTrew (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Gun Club (Secret Society)

Hi Daniel, I wanted to check with you before I re-edit this post. (You removed my edits for lack of sources.) Regarding the first deleted paragraph beginning "It is believed that. . . " - I'm not really sure how to cite this. It's the practice of the secret society. Would removing just the final sentence of my edit be satisfactory? (Also, I believe you may have deleted more than just what I added, I believe the prior post had the reference to common law.)

The paragraph beginning "While the gun club. . " is just a recent event. I'm working on being able to upload photos, as that would provide proof. Would toning down the language and simply stating what was given away and what they said work? I can also put it in the context of recent events at the school which the The Gun Club was responding to.

Regarding my final paragraph edit, beginning "Notably, Ed Cray visited" - I have the link from the school's weekly event guide stating the presentation. If I get rid of the personal account of what took place does that work?

I have a lot of other photographic evidence of the group's activities, but again, can't post that until my account is given permission to do so.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Cray (talk • contribs) 01:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Unfortunately conjecture like "it is believed" is is not appropriate for an encyclopedia unless reliable sources say that this is believed by some group. Personal photographs and accounts as well as event guides (primary sources) are not appropriate either. Please take a look at WP:V and WP:RS for policies regarding verifiability and sources we are looking for publications like the ones already used in the article as sources. Let me know if you need any other help. --Leivick (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Citing one's own work

Figured I'd leave you a note since you're an admin and far more familiar with policies. Is citing a biography you wrote (assuming User:Ed Cray is the person whose name s/he is using) considered COI? I found the page number for a piece of info he added to Earl Warren but wasn't sure how to handle it beyond that. Recognizance (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If the user is adding this material in opposition to the goals of Wikipedia it is, but citing ones own work is not in and of itself a problem for more info take a look at WP:COI. --Leivick (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I wasn't sure given the "15 year olds can write about you but you can't" rule. Recognizance (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, in the M3 CSL page you removed the term 'best handling bmw' because you say that laptimes do not correspond with best handling. As a start : - How many bmws have you driven and have you driven an M3 CSL ? - If a car is faster than ferraris and lambos in a racetrack isn't considered a good-handling car ? (accelerates, brakes, turns, has high latelar acceleration).

I have driven almost any BMW made since 1980 and I am proud owner of an M3 CSL so I can agree with the press + laptimes and say that the M3 CSL is the best handling BMW.

Cheers, alexandros —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexk64 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've driven many BMWs and all but the current generation M3, but not a CSL, but that is beside the point, Wikipedia should not contain the opinions of its editors. I am sure you know that handling is not the only factor in lap times, so yes a car that is faster than some Ferraris is probably a good handling vehicle, but that doesn't mean it is the best handling BMW of all time, that is a subjective statement. I would not be opposed to a well sourced statement saying "such and such automotive publication called the M3 CSL the best handling BMW of all time." Although I recently read an article in Evo magazine comparing all generations of M3 including the CSL, it declared the E30 the best to drive. If you want to find others opinions on this matter, you might want to bring it up on the M3 talk page. --Leivick (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)