User:Daniel J. Leivick/Archive 2

EliteFightingForces
We are one of the largest and most fastest growing squads in the whole of the cyber SWAT 4 world. It would be very much notable to any gamers who wish to research a flourishing community.

Why did you delete this article? I am the Co-Founder of this community and it bothers me to know that there are some people who do not regard such a clan as notable.

Why is it that there are still articles available about MySpace.Com and YouTube? They are large online communities as well.

What about Death Clock? It isn't a growing community itself and it still has a page.

General AirForceOne1 (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * First I did not delete your article, I tagged it for deletion and an administrator deleted because it met aspeedy deletion catagory. As for the reasons, please read WP:N which sets out guidelines for what is and isn't notable.  You may also want to read WP:COI to understand why it is generally not appropriate to create articles on topics with which one has a personal or financial connection.  Let me know if you have any other questions. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * Thank you for reverting the vandalism of my Userpage. I appreciate it very much.  All the best. Figaro (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Milestone home runs
You may have an opinion on 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 Articles for deletion/. 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 Odyssey.  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)
 * The French National library has verified their origins, that is reliable enough for me. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Pop Culture
Is there a standard about what references to subsequent material influence by the item in question (Fargo for example) can be included ?

Wholesale deletion may have been a bit extreme.

Peter Reilly (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have replied on the talk page. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I like to know how much u know about Islam
I notice that u are editing and moderating topics about Islam and Muhammad, you are insisting about putting illustrations on these topics, i like to know do u has any knowledge about Islam or history or u just copy past from other sources. do u read book or other material about religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farazilu (talk • contribs) 00:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You put a warning message on Muhammad Talk page about censorship but we are not pushing to censor wikipedia we want to rearrange its contants. so its can represent the truth and serve its purpose. if wikipedia want to keep these illustrations it can keep them in separate section. if want to keep this article then change the title of article. do u wish we put some funny pictures of other people on there biographies because in world all kind of stuff is available but some stuff is not to display everywhere, i don't think you will put your node picture on your user page. Faraz Ahmad (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this discussion where it belongs, on Talk:Muhammad. I don't need you to question my credentials, you clearly do not understand many Wikipedia policies particularly WP:NPOV. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Warning
Daniel, although CompScientist's edit warring was extreme and unacceptable, you also edit warred. I count as least three reverts, and four if you count this edit, which seems to me to at least partly have the effect of reverting CompScientist's addition of links. Don't forget also that the three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an electric fence. Please be careful not to edit war like this in the future, or you're likely to end up blocked yourself. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Eagle Revsion
How is that a better image when is show a Eagle it caps missing and has faded paint?

Atleast Mine Showed Two years, showing model changes and Clean Looking cars that show just how nice these cars look. --EagleESi (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * sorry I was writing you a note on your talk page while you were posting here. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I got it, atleast you provided a explanation unlike some one else and I am thankful for that! I kinda put the picture back, but will be placing a better picture very soon. Thx --EagleESi (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Well I found a better and after reading Wiki Code help, I believe this one should work. Do tell me what you think!EagleESi (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The new image is better, but the pic of the red car still shows things more clearly. Info box images should show a 3/4s view of the vehicle instead of the more head on angle used in the pic you added.  --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Pontiac Montana
How do i send you a reliable source from my e-mail to you that was a message from tehy sating that The Montana Sc6 will not be Discountied after 2008

Please respond
 * I responded on the Pontiac Montana talk page, please read WP:RS emails wont work. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

that doesnt help could we wokr togetehr to solve this issue

i contacted them at https://contactus.gmcanada.com/english/email_us.aspx

and clicking other ... maybe they could provide you wit a press release which will help eveone wiht this issue could you consider it

thanks

i want the truth instead of people saying vandilsm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dongzhang2 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No one said vandalism. Emails are not a reliable source.  Find a reliable source that anyone can read without using email thats the only way. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Could i ask them for a reliable source as in what ... like what could i ask them

because i get tired of people saying that it will be discountied while it not

could i maybe send you a copy of this message and you could wokr it out wiht GM CANADA

http://gmcanada.com/inm/gmcanada/english/about/News/news.html

press releases

(Dongzhang2 (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC))
 * No you are the one that wants to change it find a reliable source. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok sure if i find one and iask them thourhg e-mail for eample and iask tehm say like Dera Gm Canada I was wondeering if you have a reliable source press release link that regards to the Montana not be discoutied. does that sound goof... if they have one do or done have ibe iposr the link on the Page there and what will happen next to the link and the info thati try to fix up

(Dongzhang2 (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC))
 * that works. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

ok Thanks so when they give me al ink and i post it on the page how will it work and who will read the link so my info iadd stays —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dongzhang2 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Posting the link is all you need to do, I can't talk any more right now. Ask another time if you have any more questions. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for your patience and hope this helps imprve the article instead of being in disptes iwht other users (Dongzhang2 (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

Dude
Don't listen to that Dongzang dude. He is a Montana fan in denial. The Montana SV6 WILL be discontinued, he keeps changing it for who knows what reason. If it were the truth, he would have found something to support it, I would have (I have looked). It is a sockpuppet account anyways, and I am just about to report it to get him blocked. Karrmann (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Socks
Suspected sock puppets/CompScientist. Already a well-formed case, and some of the IPs have been blocked, along with CompScientist himself.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"Islamic Golden Age"
Thanks for the tag, I totall agree with you. The article as it is now, is untenable. The intention of the author to let the sources work his way jumps in the face. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC) No problem, I haven't taken too close a look, but calling all these people the "father of" this and that jumped out at me while I was skimming, let me know if you need any help improving the article. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * PS: You should voice your opinion, too, at Talk:Islamic Golden Age. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nissan GT-R
Not a sock this time, but another supercar wannabe at Nissan GT-R. His operational definition of adding in "sources" is shifting text down.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I'm not convinced it is not a sock, the arguments are identical have the same misunderstanding of the situation.  In any case I see no reason not to just revert.  The consensus on WP:CAR really couldn't be clearer. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Heads up. He's back and has already resorted to using one IP address (although he later refactored it after I had added it to Suspected sock puppets/CompScientist. Judging from his edits thus far at Nissan GT-R and Vietnam War, after a month-long block just expired, he's heading down a slippery slope. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  03:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working with me on this. At this point I think we should sit tight.  GT-R is clearly not the place to try and get supercar terminology back on Wikipedia.  Compscientist will have to go and make an argument at WP:CAR.  I don't want to discuss general terminology usage on an individual page, when it should be done at the appropriate project page.  Let's just try to make this as clear as possible to Compscientist. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

cfd supercar
hello, I've notice you were editing articles concerning the supercar classifiction. Maybe you would like to participate in this discussion: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_4.--79.212.210.176 (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Duff Beer (The Simpsons)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Duff Beer (The Simpsons), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Duff Beer (The Simpsons). Thank you.

Colin McRae: Dirt car list
Hi Daniel, I just saw your edit on the Dirt page and saw that you removed the car list per WP:NOT a game guide. I wasn't the one who included the car list but I have heard that game guide argument before so I went to check it out. I didn't really see what on WP:NOT suggested car lists should not be included. What section specifically were you referring to? Thank you 198.6.46.11 (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There isn't a specific section that says no car lists, however it falls under the "not a guide or manual" section as well as the "not an indiscriminate collection of information" section. In any case, consensus on other game pages has established that car lists are not desirable.  Car list and the like are better suited to FAQ pages like gamefaqs.com. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand now. Thank you for the clarification. 198.6.46.11 (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Airsoft Gun
What the heck? Why did you delete the picture of my JG Steyr AUG?

heres what you said 15:19, 22 March 2008 Daniel J. Leivick (Talk | contribs) (50,693 bytes) (rv vandalism? and we already have some better images of airsoft guns on this page)

Who cares if their better! People need to see what different kinds of airsoft guns look Like! i re added it on the airsoft gun article.
 * That is the better place. There were enough pics on the main airsoft page. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Starion
Why did the external links I had added to the very informative external resources about the car get flagged as vandalism?
 * I am not sure, I didn't make the edit you are referring to please ask the editor who did. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Z06
Daniel, Please make any of your concerns available on the talk pages prior to making changes. There were numerous changes made and none were given in detail. I'm detailed oriented so I'd like to know the specifics of any of the concerns. Making blanket changes and saying they have been discussed is not going to cut it. 206.125.176.3 (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up have I have responded on the appropriate talk page. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

External Links vs Spam
Daniel,

Thank you for the message and the note that taught me more about Wikipedia. I am confused about you removing the external links I have posted for the Coen brothers and their films. I am not sure how the site I have posted is spam. Could you please explain further? It seems that every external link posted is spam under the guidelines. What differentiates IMDB or even Almost and Evening (where they are selling tickets to the play) from the site I listed? Thank you in advance for your reply. Movieviewr (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * While perhaps not strictly speaking spam, seeing a new editor add a series of links to the same page without making any other constructive edits sets off spam alarm bells, as spam is a significant problem for this project. While you clearly added these links in good faith the website you linked to does not meet WP:EL as it does not appear to offer much valuable information beyond which could be found at IMDB or meta review sites, as it appears to be a personal web page it does not carry any sort of weight over more credible sites with editorial oversite.  It is also riddled with adds in at least a 1:1 ratio with content, which also set off my spam indicator.   Good luck editing in the future and let me know if you have any questions. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Corvette Leaf Spring
Hi, as per request of the corvette leaf spring mediator [user:Haermo] would you be interested in rewritting the article as per suggestions in the mediation page? --Autostream (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to help, can you give me a link to the mediation page? --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Daniel,
 * Here's the link. There is still significant contention about the use of MT as a Reputable vs Questionable source and if Corvette specific claims would belong in a general thread.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-03-27_Corvette_leaf_spring
 * BTW, are they still sticking two to a room in Cro Mem?
 * Thanks

Between the Moderator and the Third opinion, the opposing party now understands that the MT article and cite should be inserted. Now its just a matter of where does it belong and if the Lamm article is actually an opposing viewpoint or not. Which is why we feel a neutral editor should rewrite the article to best to put this MT quote correct and unbiased context. Here's a link to the Third Opinion page Talk:Corvette_leaf_spring--Autostream (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of the MT link as a "reliable source" vs "questionable source" is still in contention.
 * I will get a draft up as soon as I can. I am getting over the flu right now so it might be a few days as I have school stuff to catch up with.  As for Cro Mem, I think the housing crisis issue has improved, a friend of mine just got back from being abroad and she has a double all to herself, so it can't be that bad.  On the other hand another friend (an undergrad) does live in a one room quad in the basement of Cro Mem with bookshelves of old law school texts taking up half the place, I told him to sell the books on Ebay... --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The law school guys are putting books in Cro Mem now?! I understand what the basement rooms are like.  I spend my first grad school year in the basement of Crothers.  Thanks to a water main break and El Nino I was flooded out twice.  It also sucked because the only bathroom on the floor was at the other end of the building and there were no showers down there.  Escondido Village was a dream in comparison.  Now that I'm in grad school for a second time I wonder if I should have headed back to LSJU instead of staying in the south.  In the end the high cost of living and distance away from home forced the decision regarding my current degree.  Still, I wish my current school saw the value of classes like ME218 and ME217. Springee (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am touching base with you to check the status of the above mentioned revision?--24.46.144.102 (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a physics midterm tonight so I havn't had much time to make major edits, I should have something for you by the end of the week though. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I see you still appear to be a little busy for the Corvette Leaf Spring page. Would you like us to nominate another user? Thanks--24.46.144.102 (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I posted this a couple of weeks ago in the wrong section. I did some work on a draft, but need some help finding good sources for the hisotry section.  Any help would be appriciated, feel free to ask others to work on the draft, I am not in the least bit possessive about my work on this site. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have got some work done on a draft it can be seen at User:Daniel J. Leivick/Transverse leaf spring.  Currently I havn't got past the intro, overview and history sections. Right now I am looking for more sources on the history of the arrangement particularly in regards to early Corvettes. Let me know if anyone has any suggestions. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Daniel,


 * When completing this section please be sure to review some of the edits I have added to the Corvette leaf spring page. I’ve added some additional illustrations which should prove useful in this article.  One of them does a good job of illustrating how a leaf spring mounted with two points can deliver an anti-roll like affect.  I think this function is one of the critical things to get across in the article.  The recent issue with the MT article illustrates this point.


 * After asking MT for clarification it came to light that MT’s tech editor was confused by this function. He had assumed that pulling up on one side of the leaf spring would cause the other to drop by some amount (ie it would work exactly opposite of an anti-roll bar).  This sort of behavior likely existed in the older Corvettes with a single central mount (in theory rigid but likely not 100% in practice).  However it clearly does not exist in the later models with the widely spaced mounting points.  I have added FEA illustrations showing this in addition to the previous patent and other references.


 * Please let me know if there is any section you would like help with. I trust that if you review what I write it can be considered impartial. Springee (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Daniel,

When we originally discussed making the transverse leaf spring section generic we were trying to figure out where to draw the limits. For instance we didn’t necessarily want to discuss the suspension of the Model T. Perhaps the cutoff should be discussions of independent suspensions which use the transverse leaf spring. That would include not only the current Corvette’s with their anti-roll effect wide spaced mounts but also older cars like those from Fiat and Rover which used transverse leaf springs. This would also mean including cars, again like Fiat which used the leaf like an A-arm as well as a spring.

Just a thought.Springee (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reverts!
--barneca (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Definition of muscle car
Your changes to the lead sentence in the muscle car article does not make it more specific. Describing that this term may "refer to a variety of high performance automobiles" is much less specific than the referenced definition that you removed. Your generic description can cover almost every model produced because "high-performance" is undefined. Automakers and auto enthusiasts are quick to describe almost any attribute of a vehicle as having "high performance". This broad definition includes a variety of attributes that do not encompass the features that distinguish true "muscle" cars from other "high performance" automobiles. Therefore, please reconsider your deletion of a cited definition of what these cars really represent. This was paraphrased from a verifiable source:
 * an automobile with a high horse power engine, modest weight, capable of producing high levels of acceleration."How Muscle Cars Work" by the Auto Editors of Consumer Guide, retrieved on April 10 2008.

Thank you — CZmarlin (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this be discussed on the muscle car talk page? --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Brandon Link
An article that you have been involved in editing, Brandon Link, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Brandon Link. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Renford Reese
Thank you for putting the notability tag on the article. It is also autobiographical, and exhibits some of the worst traits of that genre, especially original research. I would nominate it for AfD, but I work at the same institution, so it could be seen as COI (although I have never met Prof. Reese).--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, I feel that the article will have to either be drastically trimmed or deleted in the near future. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Warnings
Hello, in the future, please be sure to put vandalism warnings on the user's talk page instead of their user page. This makes it more likely that the user being warned will see the warnings, and also makes it easier for us to find them when blocking. Thanks. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

MDI/ACF
Hey Daniel,

You obviously have a problem with the modification I made in the air car wiki. Had a look at the regulations you send me. The way I see it this wiki is just to inform people about all technology available concerning the air car. I think the line that is currently there is quite negative about ACF. I dont know much about this argument between these companies but they have worked together for 8 years so both should be displayed in a fair way. I came accross this text and though it would be interesting to add.

Sorry about the disagreement, I would really appreciate it if you would let me know what should be changed for you to approve it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony technology (talk • contribs) 08:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, just provide verifiable references from reliable independent sources and word it in a neutral matter and it wont be any problem. Let me know if you have any question about how to do this. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 08:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Had a look at the webpages of MDI and ACF. I put some references and changed some sentences. What do you think?

Mr. Guy Nègre's company accuses Mr. Miguel Celades' company of trying to gain commercially from affiliation with MDI. They say ACF is lying they are part of MDI to lure investors. It seems they really were, and there were also client relations between the two companies, before the 3th of February this year, when MDI stated a rescission of the contract between the two companies.

Official response of ACF states that they are a separate company and have a right to develop their compressed air technology, and that Mr. Nègre's accusations towards their company seem trivial and unfounded.

Mrs. Van der Weiden, Celades’ executive assistant stated that vehicles functioning on compressed air have existed since 1687 and the patent of these vehicles cannot be owned by anyone.

Mr. Celades feels he is forced to make a legal stand, but wishes that Mr. Nègre would leave him in peace. ACF state that any article should clearly express that they are a completely independent company and have nothing to do with Motor Development International or Guy Nègre.

Air Car Factories is a recently founded company interested in the development of a car functioning on compressed air as part of their 'ecological vehicles concept'. They are also importing various electric vehicles to finance the research and development stage of this project. Furthermore ACF is very interested in commercializing inventions of others related to energy and transport .
 * I think that the best course of action would be to remove all references to the legal action from the article, none of them are sourced from independent sources and it isn't any good to likely biased info from company website. As far as I can tell the lawsuit appears to be non notable from a Wikipedia perspective as it has not been covered by any reliable sources independent of the subjects. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Daniel,

Had another look at the text. Don't you think that, following what you wrote to me, the current sentence should be deleted as well? it's okay to put 'AirCar was founded by Mr Celades, who has been publically accused of fraud on MDI's website' with a link to MDI's webpage? But then it is not allowed to write something about ACF's response to these accusations? The thing is that, being an engineer, I am very interested in this technology and have been speaking to both Mr. Negre and Mr. Celades in the past. I think its important to create a fair image of both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony technology (talk • contribs) 14:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is what I meant. I don't think we should mention the legal action at all.  We should just state some simple facts about the company. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I find the logic of your recent edits bizarre. In what way can AirCar and MDI both be notable, yet a legal conflict between the two which directly challenges the existence of one of the two is not worth describing? Please revert your deletion of the fraud allegation, or properly justify your action. The reference given is a primary source, there can be no question as to its validity. Greg Locock (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know the legal conflict itself has not been covered by a third party source so its notability is not established. In order to write about this legal conflict objectively we shouldn't be using primary sources who obviously have a conflict of interest.  If we had some objective context with which to discuss this legal dispute I would be fine with it, but just saying "there is a legal dispute" is not only not very informative it is also potentially misleading as the source links readers only to MDI's perspective on the matter.  Tony technology attempted to add a rather biased (IMO) clarification that seemed to come from aircars perspective in order to balance the bias he perceived, while I didn't approve of his unsourced addition, I had to agree that the prior state of the article was at best unclear and at worse misleading.  I hope this clarifies my position on the matter, let me know if you have any further thoughts on the matter as I would be open to them. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So you are saying that every statement in an article about a notable subject needs to be confirmed by a third party source before it can be included? I think this is rather a poor precedent. Once notability has been established then the preferred source for undisputed details would surely be the subject's own claims? I would regard the MDI site as authoritative about the accusations MDI are making, and aircar as authoritative when making a response to them. What would be unacceptable would be for Wiki to recast their words into something beyond their original meaning, I don't believe my original section on it did that. Citing sources seems relevant, to me. Greg Locock (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree in general, obviously we don't need a third party source to say "company x is has its headquarter in y" but when a legal dispute is involved I think we need to be more careful. If you want to write an brief, clear and even handed description of the situation sourced from both websites I would support it keeping it.  However I can't support just saying MDI has a legal dispute with AirCar, for the reasons I have already stated. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin
Hi. I just wondered if you've considered becoming an admin. You seem experienced enough, so I'd be happy to nominate you if you're interested. Regards. Epbr123 (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would defitintly like to become an admin and think I could do a good job with it. I don't have much experience with RFAs so I am not sure if I would make it.  Do you think I would likely recieve the position if nominated?  I don't have a long history of article creation, but I think my edit history while lately consisting of a lot of reverts speaks for itself.  Thanks for your confidence. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you'd have a good chance of passing. From looking at your edit history, your main strengths are you AfD experience, and your ability to handle conflicts well. You also have a reasonable level of vandal-fighting and article-building experience, with your contributions to various car articles. RFAs can be be unpredictable so I can't guarantee you'll pass, but if it fails, at least it would be a good learning experience. I must warn you though that you need to be willing to have your edit history criticised, possibly unfairly. If you're willing to give it a try, you'll first need to spend about a week familiarising yourself with the Administrators' reading list, Guide to requests for adminship and Administrators' how-to guide, and also browse through the RfA archives to see how others handle their nominations. Let me know what you think. Epbr123 (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright let's do it. I will study the reading list this week.  If you want to nominate me some time next week I would really appreciate it.  Thanks again. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. Before we start the nomination, you'll need to become e-mail enabled. If you become an admin, you'll need to be contactable via e-mail, mainly because users you've blocked wouldn't be able to edit your talk page. Let me know when it's enabled, and we'll start completing you're nomination page. Epbr123 (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * done. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

 Epbr123 would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Epbr123 to accept or decline the nomination. A page for your nomination at Requests for adminship/ . If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. Here's your nomination page. Take your time answering the questions and try to make your answers as thorough as possible. Once you're done, let me know and I'll start the RfA. Epbr123 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have filled out the nomination page, please take a look and let me know if there are any issue immediately apparent. Thanks again for the nom. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your answer to question 1 probably needs expanding. You'll need to demonstrate why you'll be good in the admin areas you've stated you want to work in, and you should be careful not to show an immediate interest any areas in which you are inexperienced. You'll also be asked many questions on these areas, and one poor answer would be enough to fail the RfA. Epbr123 (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have expanded my answer to question 1 and explained how my experience gives me the understanding necessary to work at various admin tasks. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We're nearly ready to go. I've sent you an email to test whether it's working alright. Epbr123 (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC) I've sent another. Epbr123 (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything seems fine. Are you ready to start? Epbr123 (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I am ready. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's begun. Some final tips are to remember that canvassing is discouraged, and not to be too defensive when criticised. Good luck. Epbr123 (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think it would be advisable to put a link to the discussion on my userpage. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are allowed to display this template on you user and talk page, which links to the RfA: . Epbr123 (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Audi R08
I noticed you recently reverted the change of R8 to R08. I think this was a good faith edit trying to get the Audi vehicles category page to sort R8 before R10. Since R08 is not actually displayed anywhere and is only used for sorting, I don't see this as a bad thing. I didn't make the edit so I'm just making a guess as to what 78.32.143.113 was thinking. Has there been any discussion about this on WP:CAR? swa q  19:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I see that now and will revert myself if no one else has. It looked like a strange attempt to change the vehicles name on the category page, but I now understand my mistake, thanks for pointing it out. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It was confusing to me too at first so I looked into it to see how it actually affected things.  I left a note about using edit summaries on the anon's talk page.  swa  q  20:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Dennis Oliver
Honestly, I'm not really interested in this article so please go ahead and do what you think is right. Let me just explain how I saw it when I nominated : his so called "official site" is a joke, his imdb page is basically empty and the other links are websites where anybody can register and put up his own resume. That's pretty much why I considered putting the article on SD instead of wasting people's time with an article that so obviously fails the notability criteria. It just seems to me like a fan (Ralicia -- the only person updating the article besides a couple IPs) is trying to promote a person she knows. Besides, if you take a look at her talk page, you'll be able to read all the reasons why it has already been speed deleted twice and probably will again. Regards. Thiste (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA
I have given you some questions on your RFA. Good Luck LegoKontribsTalkM 05:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I made some comments at your RfA. Please take them as gentle ribbing, not criticism. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

about mentioning soul calibur with GTA 4 review
Nah, you weren't wrong. I understand that people don't always feel like checking with the sources. =O It was probably just someone who remembered SC's score from '99. ;O Even though, I still think it woulda been completely irrelevant which game got the topscore back then. I really don't see why we should give that information. Emil Kastberg (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted you, saying that there wasn't a reason not to mention the comparison if the review made it, then I watched the review and realized that it didn't actually make the comparison and didn't mention which game got the perfect score a decade ago. I then reverted myself back to your version but fixed the number of decades.  We're all good right? --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure we are – that is what happened. (I couldn't tell you where the two decades came from, though ;)) It's just that my opinion is it's a totally unnecessary piece of information; the purpose should be to inform of IGN's appreciation of the game, and stating that it had been nine years since any game last got the highest rating is what accomplishes this. Mentioning which game this is spells "comparison" to me, which is just not what an encyclopedia is for. Just enough information to put the game's score into perspective.
 * I know I may be dragging this a bit long. ^^ I just wanted to explain myself. Emil Kastberg (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Art museum
re your de-tagging, I agree on the NPOV but the entire article is unsourced OR with a half complete list of some museums. It needs to be blown up entirely, but OR may be the least of its issues TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 13:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats fine with me, feel free to stick the tag back up, I just wanted an explanation. You might also want to explain your reasoning on the talk page. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA was successful
Congratulations, I have closed your Request for Adminship as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * CongratsBalloonman (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done. Pedro : Chat  22:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you guys and to everyone else. I hope I can live up to your expectations. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done. Didn't even know you were nominated until I read about you in the Signpost. --DeLarge (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

societyfinalclubs
I am removing everything by societyfinalclubs, he tried to write some article about an Order of Skull and Crescent- it did not google, he must be a hoaxer, he was blocked and I am telling everyone that he was blocked so they know- I also never heard of any of the groups that he created blue links for- I think they are all hoxes- i'm not talking any chancesFrienlifer (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling that you are in fact societyfinalclubs trying to do a "if you wont play by my rules I am talking my ball and going home." Just because you were blocked for 3RR does not mean anyone thinks it is a hoax (although this sort of action doesn't help).  If you are not societyfinalclub, see WP:AGF, you have to take the chance, check the societies out and if they are in fact hoaxes delete them through the proper channels. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Frienlifer
Daniel, I'm quite confident this is User:Societyfinalclubs, whose feelings got hurt when people dared to question (not delete, mind you, but question) his article. I fear you're wasting your time dealing with him rationally; Prashanthnl and I have already wasted our time on him tonight, bending over backwards to assume good faith, wasting probably a half hour each, there's no sense you getting sucked down with us. --barneca (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, nevermind, I didn't see your post above. You're way ahead of me. --barneca (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While I'm here: congratulations! --barneca (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! While I have your ear, I wouldn't mind some constructive criticism as to how I handled the situation. I was pretty much sure that I was dealing with a sock puppet, but I was hesitant to issue a block to a user whose edits I was personally reverting without going through WP:SSP (obviously I went ahead and did it any way).  Let me know what you think.  Additionally I am really baffled by societyfinalclub's actions, this user went through a huge amount of work and created some pretty solid content, and than just flies off the handle when someone gives the slightest hesitation regarding a hoax article deleted almost a year ago, I just don't get it. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You did fine. I don't feel that reverting someone's obviously bad faith edits, on an article you have no previous history with, makes you somehow "involved".  If it did, it would be too easy to game the system.  You do have to be really careful in similar situations, as it could look from outside like a content dispute that you used your tools with.  I started out (only 3 months as an admin) similarly, worried about stuff like that, and starting out slowly and tentatively probably isn't a bad idea.  Doesn't hurt to run anything you aren't sure about past another admin or WP:ANI.  And if a little voice in the back of your head tells you "there's a 5% chance this guy's right", don't take the risk yourself.  But in this particular case, where their content removal was so obviously WP:POINTy, you have no worries. --barneca (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And this was a nice touch. Doing fine. --barneca (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been following this secret society stuff for a while now, check the Theta Nu Epsilon talk page- those guys were behind the S&C article last year being removed by screaming hoax- they have a thing out for Purdue because Purdue's TNE may have also benn an "Alpha". Societyfinalclubs, that knows what is going on, knows about S&C being a sensitve topic, and he knew that things could escalate very quickly into a hoax accusation, and with all due respect it did, I saw that soemone flagged the article at the end as having hoax material, it was not just what was on the talk page- so Societyfinalcubs was very justified in his concerns. I have contributed to the TNE talk pages many times,and everyone who has walked away- that group is known to be trouble makers, and they want to see everything about Purdue be silenced. I left talk on the Collegiate secret society in North America page- societyfinalclubs should be sent a message on his talk page to contune his great work- he knows more about this stuff than anyone I have ever seen editing the topic on Wikipedia- what he adds is legit.Jonesbig (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't need to hear about all this Theta Nu Epsilon/S&C stuff, I don't care about it. Societyfinalclub did some good work and deserves praise for it.  However he also engaged in disruptive blanking and got blocked for it.  Suddenly all these account are coming out of the woodwork either trying to delete everything he added or defend him (obvious sock puppetry), it is just a waste of time, when Societyfinalclub's block expires he has three choices.
 * Number 1: Keep providing quality content using good sources and working with others to make good articles.
 * Number 2: Continue editing disruptively and be blocked indefinitely.
 * Number 3: Stop editing.

The ball is in his court. It is up to him, there is no need for any further discussion on the matter. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

message to you
I've written a message to you on my talk page (response to you). Don't think of it as a challenge to your authority. It is merely a question to help me understand Wikipedia better. Doctor Wikipedian (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Message
I want to add a concerns section to that page for further clarity. I already notified all legitimate users on public accounts to create new ones from their own personal computers. Keep Mctrain closed, he will start a new account from own his PC. Thank you very much Geniejargon (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Who are you? How can you notify legitimate users? How can you tell the difference? This whole thing stinks. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Geniejargon has been blocked as a Mctrain sock. Edward321 (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-15 WikiProject Automobiles open
Informal mediation has been opened at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-15 WikiProject Automobiles at the request of Dddike, with you being named as a party to the dispute. The dispute is over the adoption of this process page without adequate consensus and other tangential issues. Named parties to the dispute are: Dddike, user:IFCAR, user:Scheinwerfermann, User:Daniel J. Leivick, user:PrinceGloria, User:842U. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A favor
Dan, I'm trying to get some editors talking at Isis Gee. We have a disruptive IP user, can I get you to semi protect the article for 72 hours? Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems like things have calmed down a little in past couple of hours. I will watchlist it and protect if another edit war begins to brew. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Audi R8 performance
I wrote, that R8 is a great track car, because it's achieved great lap times on many tracks. I think that, if R8 is able to keep up with the best sports car in the world, i can say it's a great track car. If you still don't agree with me just delete the sentence "R8 is a great track car", but not the whole section.By the way, in the section above there is much more subjective statements,like: "agility and lightness of touch,","absolutely, utterly amazing to drive.","fantastic in a way that will appeal more to true car enthusiasts.",and you didn't delete them.What is the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.15.107.130 (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what you are missing is that the statement is not attributed to anyone, it is just your opinion and is thus not encyclopedic. The other subjective statements in the section are quotes directly from reliable sources in the automotive world.  Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research so comparing lap times and coming to conclusions is not appropriate, but you might be able to find a quality source per WP:RS that says the R8 is a great track car with lap times comparable to Ferraris, but without one the sentence cannot be used.  --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Mark Hanau
What a canny mess that is. I've posted it to ANI. Thanks again for telling me about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Your recent move of the 1996 Qana Massacre article
Hi, I was trying to find the consensus you referred to in your renaming of the 1996 Qana Massacre article, but could find no such concensus. Could you please point me to the specific discussion you were referring to? Thanks! ← George [ talk  ] 21:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, it actually appears that it was another user who moved the article after you moved it. Not sure why they did that, but please disregard. ← George [ talk  ] 21:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Entry deleted - Blatant Advertising?
I contributed the article on figure skating coach Paige Aistrop that has been deleted as being "blatant advertising". I've reviewed the Wiki policy and think that one of the external links to a biography page on what appears to be a commercial web site perhaps caused the advertising interpretation

As a new contributor I'd like a little help on how to deal with this, since this was certainly not intended to be an advertisement, rather a point of reference on an elite coach for the world of competitive figure skating that I am interested in

Might it have been better to delete the external link and bring the piece in line with the policy rather than removing the whole piece? I believe that Wikipedia is now lacking an entry that those interested in figure skating might want to see

There are entries for other figure skating coaches such as Ellen Burka, Frank Carroll, Doug Leigh and Marina Zoueva and these are all marked as stubs. I would like to expand these entries but would not be interested in so doing if they also will be deleted. The point of the Aistrop piece was to have it more than the stub entries for the other coaches I know of

Any help you can offer for a novice would be greatly appreciated

Thanks - LSELseweston (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The primary problem with the article was that it was written entirely in a promotional tone. When writing article we must adhere to WP:NPOV and strive for neutral language.  The article also didn't seem to to sight any reliable sources as all the links seemed to be to promotional weblistings.  An addition the article didn't assert much notability.  Finally you might also want to take a look at WP:COI if you have a financial or personal connection with the subject or WP:AUTO if you are the subject.  I know this is a lot to read, but producing articles on Wikipedia is actually not that simple.  You may want to try improving some articles on topics that interest you in order to learn how things work before you dive into article creation.  Let me know if you have any other questions or need any help. --Daniel J. Leivick

(talk) 18:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the feedback. I didn't think the tone was promotional but of course that's the beauty of Wikipedia with the peer review process etc. I'll follow your advice and improve some other articles and then maybe have another run at article creation, but in the meantime, as you rightly say, I have a lot of reading to do! Is there any chance that the Aistrop article can be retrieved so I can try to figure out how the tone needs to be changed? I can't see any way to get to it now it has been deleted, and I think that might help me develop my neutral language writing skills. Of course I didn't keep a copy on my own system (and there's probably a lesson in that for me too). I do appreciate your help and thanks again.Lseweston (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have created a draft page for you and restored the deleted content there: User:Lseweston/draft. A promotional tone can be difficult to detect, but the text currently give the impression that it is selling the subject.  I would try to shorten it and cite each claim it makes from a relaible independent source.  Try to avoid subjective characterizations like "impressive" and "acomplished."  Even things like "many" are better off phrased in other ways, like "a number."  Another very important thing is to make sure the article is well referenced.  Without a promotional tone, but also without quality third party references giving more than trivial discusion to the subject the artile will likely be deleted through WP:AFD. Feel free to ask for my input or help with specific issues later. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Trellium-D
The result wasn't merge, that conversation wasn't even on this page, but an unrelated page. This AfD was moving toward "keep" if anything. Why did you close it as merge when that wasn't the consensus? Or is consensus another policy that I should use as a baseball bat to bash newbies with when it's convenient and ignore otherwise? --Blechnic (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Article was merged during the discussion and not reverted. Think of it as active consensus, if you don't like the merge feel free to discuss it on the appropriate page, the old Trellium D page still exists, it is just a redirect now, but could be restored by anyone. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So I can just revert? In other words consensus and discussion is meaningless?  I'm getting that.  --Blechnic (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not going to make the decision for you. AfD showed no consensus to delete, at the time it looked like consensus was to merge the article.  That consensus can be changed, discuss it on the appropriate talk page.  I don't know what you want me to do, the AfD is closed, the article was not deleted. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to merge, there were two keeps and one merge vote, the person who wanted to merge all the other articles, and the person who closed the AfD as merge. Please, do nothing for me, but explain to me in Wikipediaeze how two keep votes, one delete vote, and one merge vote make a consensus to merge?  --Blechnic (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I already said, the article was merged during the debate, no one reverted, I assumed that was the consensus. AfD is not a vote, I was going by what appeared to be a rough consensus based on the fact that the article was merged without opposition. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll just unmerge it. --Blechnic (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Chiboyers
Did you mean to block User:Chiboyers as a sock puppet of Societyfinalclubs? The user name doesn't appear on Suspected sock puppets/Societyfinalclubs or Requests for checkuser/Case/Societyfinalclubs. -- Ned Scott 07:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I'm a bit slow tonight, sorry. -- Ned Scott 08:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This has a long history and is a really mess, take a look at these pages for more background: Articles for deletion/Grace Talarico di Capace, Articles for deletion/The Pugilist Club Talk:Collegiate secret societies in North America and Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent and its associated AfD. This is a tangled web of suspect hoax edits and sock puppets, mixed in with some decent editing which makes it all very hard to sort out.  Let me know if you need any more info. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Daniel,
 * In retrospect, Ned is probably right that we should leave a little more information for an unblock reviewer; I'm guilty of the exact same thing myself. A good place to point to is User:Barneca/watch/societyfinalclubs, which has a pretty comprehensive list.  I've left a little message at User talk:Chiboyers to this effect. --barneca (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * p.s. the "pointer" in my previous edit summary didn't mean I thought you needed a pointer; it meant I was leaving that link as a "pointer" for the unblock reviewer to more info. --barneca (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Connector Pens Speedy Deletion - Totally unwarranted
I created the article. I don't seek advertising for a company I don't work with or for or have any association with at all. Just wondering how you saw it as "Blatant advertising"? I'm finding it hard to see this myself. Also, next time you do hit my talk page, could you please sign? It's just four tildes at the end of your message. TheKhakinator (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake, not a speedy candidate... restored. I didn't mark you talk page though, it wasn't me who forgot to sign. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Realised the talk page mistake just after... anyway cool we got this cleared up. Thanks mate TheKhakinator (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)