User talk:Daniel J. Leivick/Archive 5

Asher Roth
Apologies if this is not proper Wiki etiquette, but I noticed you reverted back to a previous version of Asher Roth's Wiki page after I made factual changes on his religion. My information came directly from his father and was curious why you reverted back given this info. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mendle44 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Airsoft
On the airsoft page, There is hardly any games listed. Airsofters need a varity of games.

Thanks, Drunken Shinobi.
 * Airsofters certainly play an infinite variety of games, but the list you added is original research. If you can find a reliable source listing common variants feel free to use it a source and add a brief section on game variants.  Let me know if you need any help. --Leivick (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious edits
There's a new editor adding the same info to articles that the last crop of Barbaro hoaxer socks did. Edward321 (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Request to undelete Shopit
You were the last person to delete the Shopit wikipedia page and from what I can tell we need to appeal to you to recreate it. I'm newer to our company and have read through the previous reasons for being deleted and can assure you that blatant advertising will not happen again. We've done our research and would like to be able to recreate our page. If you're not who I need to contact can you please let me know where to go from here? I appreciate it, thank you! Dreamxagain (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think that you should create the article as you have a conflict of interest. You should probably read WP:COI which explains our guidelines on this matter. You also might want to take a look at WP:BFAQ which contains answers to questions regarding articles on one's own business. Also keep in mind that the subject will need to pass our basic notability requirement outlined at WP:N. You are free to create the article at anytime, but it may be deleted again for similar reasons.  If you would like you can create the article on your own userpage or subpage and have myself or another editor look it over before moving it to the main space where it will be vulnerable to deletion. Let me know if you have any other questions. --Leivick (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Relapse
Thanks for locking the relapse page!!! no body else would P-Real DA deal 17:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by P-Real DA deal (talk • contribs)

Peter F. Cross
This article was so speedily deleted that I didn't have a chance to even place a {hangon} tag on it! It was deleted within five minutes of creation, and while it was still being edited. Cross was an engraver at the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia and did design a medal - and also helped create a notable gold coin. He was a minor subject of a numismatic magazine article on that $20 double eagle. That article also had proper references, including that of a U.S. government website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OldsVistaCruiser (talk • contribs) 23:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference was a five line profile, which doesn't add up to notability. You are free to recreate the page with proper referencing if you like.  You might want to create it in your user space first so it doesn't get deleted, than when it is ready you can move it to the article space. --Leivick (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Relapse cover
Hi, may I ask you to delete all but current versions of the ? Thanks! Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --Leivick (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus
You have acted directly against the consensus at Apocalypticism. Please don't do that. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Four of the six people at the AfD suggested a redirect or merge. As it stands the article contains little content that isn't covered on the End times page aside from a long redundant list of apocalyptic fiction.  I think it should be a redirect, but if you want to work on the article you are welcome to. --Leivick (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Willie Colón
I am Willie Colón. I have tried to correct factual errors and omissions in the past to no avail.

There was never any singer of mine that was killed by street gang. I am a prolific Producer and have produced the best selling records IN THE SALSA GENRE. I am also an important composer having composed well over 100 songs with many hits.

I am a political activist and have been success despite various attempts to being blacklisted for my political positions on Cuba and Puerto Rico.

I practically single handedly made Puerto Rican folkloric musics popular in the diaspora. When they were very unpopular. So to say that I am unimportant to the Puerto Rico section I am aghast.

The arcane juggernaut that is Wikipedia goes for volume and not quality. My career and my life's work is just another article to you and I resent the condescension and disrespect displayed by your staff. My legacy is not your property.

If you're not going to do it correctly then remove my page so that people can go somewhere else to find accurate information.

If you decide to just leave my page as it is and ignore my wishes, I will make it a point to declare my disappointment in the manner your information is collected and the questionable veracity of your "free encyclopedia" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waccolon (talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to work with you on improving your biography, but you must understand that Wikipedia is a public project and you do not have any more control over your article than anyone else. "Free Encyclopedia" refers to Wikipedia's goal of creating content that is free of ownership, not a place where anyone is free to post whatever they like.  You may want to take a look at our policies on conflict of interest as well as the FAQ for article subjects like yourself.  These can be found at WP:COI and WP:ASFAQ respectively.  The issue with the content that I recently reverted was that it was entirely sourced from your own website which is not considered a reliable source for your own achievements due to its obvious conflict of interest.  In order to seriously improve the article we would need reliable third party information with which to write the article.  My best suggestion to you at this point would be to post any suggestions for article improvements on Talk:Willie Colón from there editors like myself can make necessary changes.  Let me know if you have any questions and I apologize, you are right Wikipedia can be arcane and convoluted, but that is just the way it is and there really is nothing that you are I can do about it, so lets try to make the best of it. --06:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Gamephoton is not a blog
Gamephoton is legit review gaming website. The site is official and true. Did you actually spend time checking www.gamephoton.com first before you delete it? If not, I encourage you to check it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ps1on1c99 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The website does not appear to be a reliable source per WP:RS it looks like it is a personal webpage and most of its content is hosted by wordpress, a blog hosting website. The content you are adding is also in violation of WP:NPOV as it is quoting a "reviewer's" opinion as fact.  What you are doing is not far from adding spam links as you appear to be here only to promote a single source. --Leivick (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Gamephoton is an actual game information site, so what do you mean as reliable source? It isn't like science how molecules work or how the ecosystem of the environment is affected by certain source. It's a game that is for people and people need to have information about it. Gamespot and IGN are no different than gamephoton; the only thing that they differ is that they have been online for years. You are looking at the degree of reputation between a website that has been existed for years and vice versa. The reason gamephoton promotes suitable information that readers want about the game. Please do not consider Gamephoton as a non-reliable source because it will insult the gamephoton reviewer who have poured their time and effort in researching the games they bought and played. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ps1on1c99 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at WP:RS which explains what a reliable source is. Gamephoton does is not an authoritative source and is not known for editorial oversight or accuracy.  It is different from IGN or Gamespot as these are very well known websites whose opinions are very important in the video game world, Gamephoton does not appear to have attracted any attention from the video game industry or player base.  The information you continue to add is also non neutral and makes authoritative claims about video games, even if IGN had made these observations, they would still need to be rephrased to indicate that they are merely opinions rather than facts. --Leivick (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, there are no such thing as neutral in reviewing games, that is why they called it game review.

It is hard to not notice when you keep mentioning the bias issue in the games I posted, I stand corrected and I had edited based my previous post to a more neutral ground, not entirely neutral. The review style of Gamephoton are based from their heart, unbiased, and professional. You are true that Gamephoton is not well known in video game industry, but their opinions about PC games are simple and true, yet easy to understand without the use of flowery words unlike other well known websites. In the past 8 years, I always used Gamespot and IGN as one of my reliable source of information prior to buying the game. I know that Gamespot and IGN are reliable source, but I believe that Gamespot and IGN review are biased as well. Now let's put the popularity aside for awhile, Did you ever read Gamephoton reviews? Try compare it between both IGN and Gamespot. I do not see any difference between three of them, in fact they are great in their own way.

Yes, I read WP:RS that is why I changed the wording style from my previous posts from opinionated to more neutral and about the reliability of the source. Come on, how much reliable wikipedia wants it? A game is for people to enjoy and judge whether it's good or bad. Unless you are reviewing Quantum Physics or E=MC2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ps1on1c99 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am glad that we are able to discuss this civilly, but Wikipedia requires it's sources to be authoritative which Gamephoton is not it is a self published source and it gets only 2 relevant Google hits which indicates that it is on the very far edges of the video game world (this is the difference between Gamephoton and major review websites like IGN). You are right, games are for people to enjoy and they are great for people to write about which makes it good that sites like Gamephoton exist, however Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and needs to be selective about what sources of information it uses. An encyclopedia should include only what major notable figures have to say about things and should not reiterate what is said on a personal website or blog.  The other thing you need to keep in mind is the difference between fact and opinion, encyclopedias only state fact.  Saying, "the game developers implement x perfectly" is a statement of opinion, saying "an IGN reviewer said that the developers implemented X perfectly" is a statement of fact and would be appropriate.  However saying "a Gamephoton reviewer said that the developers implemented X perfectly" would leave the reader wondering who Gamephoton is or why its opinion matters, thus these sources should not be used. One more thing to keep in mind is that we don't use the second person verb tense in an encyclopedia, saying "You start the game in a bunker" is the second person and implies that the reader has played or will play the game which may not be the case, it needs to be phrased "the player starts the game in a bunker." If you wish to contribute Wikipedia and I hope you, it would be much less controversial to source review information from reliable prominent sources.  --Leivick (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Heel and Toe technique
I have revised and revived the section on alternative heel and toe technique deleted by you. I believe it has merits.

Firstly, it is not original research, as I have acquired the technique from a Vietnamese book before the fall of Saigon in 1975, it is out of publication, and i could not trace it today. If you go strictly by the book, then it can be called unverifiable. But, as an active user for more than 20 years driving using the technique, I am also a legitimate source that is verifiable, by you and others, if you thus so inclined.

Secondly, not all vehicles can be driven by the conventional technique, due to their pedals positions. This provides an alternative for normal but keen drivers whose cars are factory standard, not modified to suit their feet The foot of a sitting driver can rotate outwards through nearly 90 degrees, easily accommodate most brake and gas pedals positions, while it can only rotate 30 degrees inwards as most. Trying to brake, blip or hold the gas by conventional method is apparently awkward by natural body mechanics, but the awkwardness is tolerable due to the short duration the foot is asked to perform, as in competition driving, but for other times, with the alternative one can touch the brake, blip the gas, or hold both the brake and the gas pedals all day long. As for the critiques about control the brake with the flex of the knee, I do not see what they are talking about. Drivers flex their knees when braking anyway, and not always with the heel on the floor as an anchor point for control. And with competition driving using conventional heel and toe, their right leg is also floating anyway while braking and blipping the gas, the same as in my described alternative technique, only different in foot orientation and parts used.

Thirdly, the alternative technique is unique for sitting on an up/down slope waiting 5 minutes at a train crossing, driveway or hillside. there is total control of vehicle roll. In fact, there would be none. I challenge any driver driving a conventional manual, using whatever techniques but the alternative method, without the use of handbrake/parking brakes: Sitting in a braked vehicle on a 35 degree slope with an egg taped to the front bumper, try to reverse up while a helper is holding a block of wood 2.5 cm (1 inch)from the egg. Good luck.

There you have it.Skepticus (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at the policies WP:OR and WP:RS. Individual users are not reliable sources.  Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable beyond a user saying "I am experienced and I know it is true."  I also have concerns about undue weight, if the only place this was ever mentioned is an out of print Vietnamese book from 35 years ago, it is probably not an important part of the heel and toe technique.  I think the important thing here is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a driving guide (where info like this might be appropriate). I am going to remove the section for now, if you can find sources discussing the technique, please restore it. --Leivick (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I spent four months on this and it is complete and writtem in a tone that t=you want to change to your own for some reason. I provided all the text for this article that goy no attention for years. How about teaking an article with some additional information intead of your changing words around. It's getting annoying. ThanksVegavairbob (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Vega article
Hello- I spent three months on this article. It is complete and well written, and an expert would find nothing missing. I provided ninety percent of the text and all the free images for it. Most of the minor corrective edits you made were needed and appreciated, but a couple of edits are questionable, as certain words or phrases convey a style, which means there are different ways to write the same thing and one isn't right or wrong. Maybe an article that you write can have every word the way you'd like them. More important for the article at this point might be a step towards getting it an A or FL rating, as it's complete and well organized as any auto article here and better than most rated higher. Mostly all of the referenced text, the images and careful editing went into it since its B rating Dec 2008, well before my extensive contribution. Thanks and regards, Vegavairbob (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing the article! I really do appreciate it as it is one of the best automotive articles out there. I felt the style edits I made where good and I think most featured article reviewers would agree that the text I changed was overly conversational, but I don't want to step on your toes, so feel free to leave it the way you want it.   That being said I think the article is close to being a featured article, if you want I would be happy to nominate it and we can get feedback on detail changes from a wider group, that being said the reviewers will undoubtedly want to make many changes and in the end you wont have any more control over the article than anyone else (some people can get upset if they detect ownership issues).  Let me know where you want to go from here, and thanks again for working on an excellent article. --Leivick (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliments. I am concerned that any of the carefully selected images would be deleted or major changes would be made as I feel that everything is just right on a content basis. I have taken instructions from an administrator to make it more neutral by adding the problems section. With that section, the article shouldn't be littered throughout with negative comments, opinions or quotes about the car's shortcomings (like the internet articles) as all the cars referenced problems are in that section. The neutral flag was removed a while back and most edits from others have been spelling. I haven't reverted more than a couple of minor edits. How much do things get changed when considered for feature status? Can I change some edits back or work with someone's edit? If the article is considered complete do they leave the content as is? Thanks for the nomination consideration.Vegavairbob (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer your questions the best I can.  I doubt any images will be deleted, as they all appear properly licensed and add greatly to the article.  As for changes made during a FA review, I can't say for sure, some reviewers could want major changes although I don't know what they would be (FA reviews go over the article with a fine tooth comb).  One thing I could see happening is a request for more varied sourcing which might mean using the internet articles you referred to.  In my opinion the problems section is fine the way it is (although it needs more inline citations), but the general view is that criticism as well as praise should be spread throughout an article in proportion to the view's prominence. Unfortunately being the major contributor to the article doesn't give you any more say as to how the article is structured so if you don't like a change you will have to discuss it and if consensus supports the change, there really is nothing you will be able to do about it as Wikipedia is controlled group consensus rather than seniority or contributions.  I don't quite understand your last question, no article is ever really considered complete, and improvements should always be welcome even to featured articles.  I am going to bed now, but if you have any more question feel free to ask and I will try and answer tomorrow night.  One more thing to keep in mind is that if you don't want to nominate the article for FA review, I won't do it, but that doesn't mean that someone else come along and nominate itin the future, so changes are more or less inevitable.  Good working with you and thanks for the barnstar. --Leivick (talk) 09:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

NSX electric steering
as per your reference the NSX uses a full electric power steering system. The electro-hydraulic systems use an electric motor to drive the power hydraulic steering pump. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. zedy (talk • contribs) 22:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. If you need any help editing let me know, but it looks like you got the hang of it.  --Leivick (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Dan- Thank you for the cool barnstar! I will get back to you on Chevrolet Vega nomination. I'm thinking of finishing Chevrolet Bel Air article first for FL status, see how its improved for the rating, then I can see how Vega article would be altered or changed. Is this ok? I'll be finished with Bel Air article in a week. Vegavairbob (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. --Leivick (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Vega article
I can't believe what Seicer did to this article. Check his final edit. He totally changed the format. I reverted it back but left out the DeLorean section which he claimed was was gross fair use abuse. Then he tagged it fan site? peacock? essay? Is he kidding. I've seen some junk auto articles. He should have enough to keep himself busy. Everything in the article is referenced. Please help to get this guy to do something useful. Please remove tagsVegavairbob (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with Seicer's addition of all those tags, as I think they are overkill, but he may have legitimate issues, he is a good editor who knows what he is doing and you did revert his edits without explanation. I am going to ask him to post his concerns on the talk page at chevy vega.  I don't have time at the moment to look over all the edits in question, but it looks like he is concerned with the long block quotes used int the article, which actually might be a problem.   I really hope that we can all work together to improve the article. --Leivick (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted it only because he totally changed it, not for the better. I left his deletion of the DeLorean sub-section because it is all quotes. I rewrote, as instructed, removing most of the quotes from the Showroom stock sub section he deleted and reinserted it after my rewrite. I left his minor edits as well and also added back minor edits made by another after his. His total reformating was not necessary and incorrect actually, grouping the Cosworth Vega section together with the Engine section which is a different engine! What a mess. His edit issues were addressed with his deletion of the DeLorean section (still deleted) and my rewrite of the other deleted section. His tag issues however are unfounded. It does not read like a fan site, The neutrality issue was already addressed and corrected as advised a while back with the Problems section. The Awards and reviews section are followed by the Problems section, which makes the article neutral. There are no opinions or bias from me in this article but do not want to ruin its tone which is neutral. Thanks.  Vegavairbob (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should be able to resolve this. I am sure Seicer will post on the talk page before making any more major edits. Lets wait and see what he has to say, he may have just made a mistake. --Leivick (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to be repetative, I only reverted his format changes to the article, such as putting the main 1970-1977 section at the end?? with production chart... He put the main section (with the images of the cars) at the end of the article, and the combining of two sections that are unrelated as mentioned. He might be a good editor in eliminating non-free text, but in this case, not style or organization of the article. His deletion of the entire DeLorean factor section was not reverted, and some his minor edits were also not reverted. The entire deleted Showroom stock section I rewrote, removed most of the quotes as per his recommendation in his notes, then I added it back to the article. I might do the same for the DeLorean section as per his instructions, which would take some time as its a large section. In the meantime, it's deleted after several months in the article. By the way, during the review (to remove neutral tag) months ago, nobody mentioned a gross non free use violation of its text.Vegavairbob (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you are one the right track.  I realize that this kind of editing isn't always fun, but it is the nature of a collaborative project, sometimes we have to work with others here even if we don't want to.  Section that are possible copyright violations have to go, even if they have been around for a while.  Not being mentioned during a previous review on a different topic, isn't by definition some sort of tacit approval.  Let me know if you need any more help sorting all this out, and thanks for you patience. --Leivick (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Dan-I had a feeling the DeLorean section in that state (all quotes) was no good. Actually I wasn't sure at first about the text violations, but I've been reading more about it. That's why I wasn't upset about his deletion. I was upset about the section order changes, etc. Anyway, he made a list and I did most of it except I have to include more citations and some spelling error corrections.
 * Thanks for your support. I'm sure your help made a difference and made it go smoother than it could have. Seicer apologised for deleting and changing without warning and I did learn some things like past tense for this article..changed it as advised. Not sure how some things work. He's a user and yet can flag and nominate articles? He actually is not happy I complained to an administrator instead of working with him first. I guess its getting closer to FL now! At least I'm still making all the needed changes.
 * Please go to my userpage and select working projects..Check out the two articles on working on..tell me what you think. I have to add much text yet. Most of the text was there..only made some edits so far. I did all the userboxes and uploaded all the images on both articles (except later 90's up Impala images) and I did generation organization on both which were a mess and incorrect. Gallery images were there and I relocated the replaced images to the galleries. How many should be in a gallery? They seem too big to me.Vegavairbob (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I will get back to you on the other articles you are working on. It is finals week so I am pretty jammed right now, but I will be graduating on the 14th so my schedule should free up dramatically then.  As for the gallery, it looks fine to me.  The image size might vary depending on monitor resolution, the pics are a little over an inch across on my screen.  The only suggestion I have would be to remove the image of the custom model unless it  relates to article content regarding modification which I don't think it does. --Leivick (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Dune (novel)
Good edit here but be warned that there are issues of ownership with this article so just a polite, courtesy notice, to give you a heads up on that. Coldmachine Talk 08:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, let me know if the ownership issues continue, I may be able to sort them out. --Leivick (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello

 * I revised Chevrolet Vega lead paragraph. I have some thoughts. The user stated the the Vega and Pinto were among the worst cars of all time. Those are his words (and opinion) and they can't be properly referenced because the Vega didn't make the "Worst cars of all time" list (recent web article)  but the Pinto did, but he chose to include both cars at the intro of the Vega article as among the worst. Nice work. I'm not allowed to state my opinion in this article. Why should he? The reference he used was Popular Mechanics.com's "10 cars that hurt GM's reputation" which the Vega was listed. I included the Vega's inclusion as the last (most current) review in the reviews section (check it out) with its reference, so again, I made a corrective edit, not a complete revert.
 * For El Camino, Bel Air and Impala I downloaded and added a total 46 images to these three articles and corrected generations and infoboxes. I will continue with additional text and larger lead paragraphs on these articles. On the Vega article, I did everything from article list on the talk page including all the proper heading changes. I did much work recently to Chevrolet Bel Air which has a start class rating. Chevrolet Monza, Oldsmobile Starfire, Pontiac Sunbird have C article ratings from before my contributions. Starfire has a start rating. Could these be considered for improved or GA ratings. Please offer your recommendations for working projects listed on my user page.  ThanksVegavairbob (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I like what you did with the Vega intro, it is really excellent, although I still think a line about it current reputation would complete it although not using some automotive journalist style hyperbole about "worst car ever," but something regarding its current less than stellar although possibly undeserved reputation.  One of the best parts of the article is that it does such a good job describing how the reliability issues came about and why they  became part of the the popular understanding of the vehicle.  Which is actually something that people who look of up the Chevy Vega here might be looking for.  As for the  Bel Air, Monza, Starfire and Sunbird articles all are vastly improved.  However they are lacking inline citations which would bring them up the quality scale significantly.  This is something I would be happy to help with if you just let me know what references you are using.  If I remember correctly the Vega article went through a similar state where it was a similar length, but did not contain inline citations.  I went ahead and moved the Starfire ranking to C as it was obviously well passed start class.  I'm sorry for the late response, I haven't been around the computer lately since the weather out here is so nice and I haven't had any work to procrastinate.  --Leivick (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. I revised intro of Chevrolet Vega as per your recommendation. Let me know what you think. ThanksVegavairbob (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfect.  I think we should move towards a FA review.  --Leivick (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello-I revised the intro for Chevrolet Vega I think its about perfect. Vega's sales peak is mentioned beforehand to keep it balanced. Your edit and closing statement remains un-changed and used your "Detroit automakers" for clarity. I know this is an important area in the car's history. I appreciate your care and patience and am flattered you're concerned with my wishes for the article. Thanks!Vegavairbob (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. I added to the body by computer with seven links for the engineering terms. ref. was already in place. Went through all notes. Did I miss anything? Vegavairbob (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The body by computer section is now much clearer. There are only a couple more issues that I can see.  First there are a couple of recently added subjective statements.  Such as "world class handling" and a reference to a excellent braking system.  These are the sort of things that article reviewers would pick out as unencyclopedic.  We can say that such and such source called the handling world class, but encyclopedias shouldn't be making judgements on vehicle dynamics.  Secondly the section of the Showroom Stock race is pretty unclear.  It is hard to tell what is a quote from a magazine and what isn't, or who is being quoted for that matter.  If it is all a quote, it is innappropriate for an encyclopedia if parts are quotes than it seems that much of the wording is not encyclopedic.  Finally I noticed that you put the body styles with caps.  Are these official names or are they just body styles, because the generic use of words like coupe definitely shouldn't be in caps.  On the otherhand if they are model names than they should be.  Let me know. --Leivick (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Marksdaman, edit warring, hate-talk, etc.
User:Marksdaman left this offensive reply to your warning about him vandalizing the Sarah Palin article ten days ago:. He continues to vandalize and make unilateral or against-consensus page moves and shows no signs of backing down. He is currently edit-warring against the consensus on Cleveland School massacre. I believe given his history of warnings, more severe sanctions need to be carried out for presistant defiance of the rules. I'm putting this on your talk page because you were the one who warned him. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking into it... --Leivick (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave him a final warning, if these issues continue I will certainly block. --Leivick (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

that
segment is straight from the source: "stubborn and Zionist demand" That was what was written in the book, look for yourself. Stubborn is not something that has to be biased, if someone is stubborn that is what he is, if you want to change it it would be like lying, and the people that was stubborn in this case was the zionist movements, zionist menaning those who wanted a jewish homeland. Both these words stubborn and Zionist is from the book. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply being in a source does not make the wording neutral. I see the text that you added was plagiarized directly from the book.  This is completely unacceptable as this is a blatant copyright violation.  In the future, you must use multiple sources and reword text in order to avoid plagiarism. --Leivick (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Im sorry, I will re-write it, didn't know that you couldn't copy before, I will do it in the upcoming days. But words like "Zionist" and "stubborn", if thats what they were, how am I supposed to be unbiased? am I supposed to say that they weren't Zionists? or that they weren't stubborn?

and btw, you also deleted the "and the Israeli controlled Golan heights" implying that southwestern Syria belongs to Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Stubborn is a subjective term that probably shouldn't be used at all to describe the actions of a particular group, something like "continued" is probably a better term. Zionist should be used with caution, although in this case it would probably be ok.  You should probably take the text you would like to add to the talk page and discuss it their, before adding it to the article.  Keep in mind that these are highly contentious topics so any sort of incivility or edit warring cannot be allowed.  As for plagiarism, text cannot be copied in anyway, you must completely rewrite it. --Leivick (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You deleted the "and the Israeli controlled Golan heights" ..what do you have to say about this?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted your entire edit on sight as an attempt to push a POV. --Leivick (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Vega
Hello- -caps are removed from sedan, coupe and wagon. Notchback Hatchback, Kammback, and Panel Express are official model names and were left capitol. -world class (handling) and excellent (brakes) are removed. I have added and deleted these adjectives once before..wasn't sure if proper but were referenced. -I will re-write the Car and Driver Showroom stock #0 section again, now. (my favorite section in article) Can I have a couple of quotes in it? The quote at the end is a must.Vegavairbob (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Check my talk page. I am being asked for myself to nominate and request a peer review for GA. Can we go for the FL instead and do we have to have a peer review? Vegavairbob (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Quotes are great, but need to be balanced with encyclopedic prose (probably in a ratio of at least 1:3) and also need to be clearly marked as quotes and attributed to their source. We don't need to go through GA, but we do have to go through a peer review before FA as it is a required part of the FA process.  Take a look at Peer review for details.  --Leivick (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're going to like what I did with Car and Driver Showroom Stock #0. It belongs in the section at the end anyway instead of buy itself in the middle of article. I revised Hot Rodding section to Hot Rodding and Racing and made sub-sections adding the C&D revised section. I re-wrote parts, shortened it and clearly defined the quotes. Also redid Cosworth section with proper sub-sections and an info-box, I will need a bit more time to add to Cosworth Vega development sub-section.Vegavairbob (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Heads-up
Hello again. Your name has come up in a discussion concerning user:Vegavairbob at so I thought you'd like to know. Writegeist (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann
Hello- How are you. This guy Scheinwerfermann.... In a discussion to change an article title I opened Straight-four engine he didn't like my comments on the talk page...he opened up a full page lecture right on the article talk page!!!!check it out (by the way I didn't know you couldn't message other editors to vote and I apologised on the talk page and in the discussion....then he proceeded to edit the Vega article from head to toe last night and I didn't revert anything that helps article....then he opens up an administrator complaint discussion as noted above. I mentioned in discussion we are working on the Vega article for FL. .Vegavairbob (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No offense Vega, but it's probably not wise to continue to come to Daniel's talk page regarding every incident when you know full well it's at WP:ANI. Let's try to keep all of the discussion centralized and to prevent the appearance of forum shopping. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  12:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

pls chk poppet valve talk

Wdl1961 (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What am I looking for? I don't see any problems. --Leivick (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Puppet" usage The 1996 U.S. patent semi-cited as support for modern usage of "puppet valve" as an alternate term for "poppet valve" is not reliable. If you [ ], you'll notice that while its title contains the word "puppet", its text refers to poppet valves (except where it erroneously refers to "popper" valves). Given the proximity of "u" to "o" and of "r" to "t" on the QWERTY keyboard, and the vagaries of OCR, Occam's razor suggests the most likely explanation for the anachronous appearance of "puppet valve" is simple typographical error. We'd need to see the original patent application or file to check for sure, and unless or until we can do that, I think we have to consider that particular source unreliable. If there is other, more reliable evidence for modern usage of "puppet valve", let's find it and incorporate it, but for now it looks like "puppet valve" is quite obsolete.

(I say that patent was semi-cited because it was added in halfway fashion. "See for example patent number such and such" is not a citation. Please properly format your citations. —Scheinwerfermann T·C21:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

ref

onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/puppet+valve - 6k - Similar pages

Wdl1961 (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Puppet valve, a valve in the form of a circular disk, which covers a hole in its seat, and opens by moving bodily away from the seat while remaining parallel with it, -- used in      steam engines, pumps, safety valves, etc. Its edge is       often beveled, and fits in a conical recess in the seat when the valve is closed. See the valves shown in Illusts. of Plunger pump, and Safety valve, under Plunger, and Safety. [1913 Webster]

it seems Scheinwerfermann does not like dictionary defs but blames all the typist for his conclusions

how can anybody like this be an editor ,only in wikpedia i guess

his edits are ridiculous and pathetic and insulting to educated people which most users are

Wdl1961 (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to start at the beginning, what is being disputed? Is it whether Puppet valve is an alternative name? --Leivick (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

QED give tel no and i will call with skype

Wdl1961 (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I conduct my Wikipedia business on Wikipedia, not over the phone. If it is really sensitive (which I doubt this is) you can email me by using the "email this user" tab in the tool bar. --Leivick (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

if yuou can not figrue it out then i am afraid i can not  type enough to explain it

sorry

Wdl1961 (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

discussion
Hello Dan, Can I call you Dan? I made two long comments in update. Check it out. Let me know what you think. Thanks for the restraint in your comment.Vegavairbob (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can certainly call you Dan. I read what you wrote, I think it should resolve things for the most part.  Take a look at what I wrote on your talk page.  Also no need to post here when we are having an on going discussion on your talk page.   It makes it more difficult to follow in the future. --Leivick (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking a break
Dan I'm taking a break from the site. There is alot of weird things going on here. I'm being threatened and accused of recruiting editors. The fact is I was contacted by a user that hates this guy..you know who..I saw edits on several article and talk pages (no user) and then I'm being threatened. I think you might have your hands full with a couple of users. I can't deal with this anymore.Vegavairbob (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A break is probably a good idea. I hope that you do come back and continue to post good content.  Also keep in mind that it is not a good idea to log out and edit with an IP address if you have an account, some would consider this sock puppetry. --Leivick (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Threatening post from Long Island-based IP
Apparently this IP resolves to Long Island. Coincidentally Long Island is also, I'm told, home to VVB.

These edits   by the same IP are to articles where VVB's edits are already prolific.

Obviously it wouldn't help for me to get into a dialogue with him about his obnoxious post to my Talk. If you really still think you have any influence at all, you might care to have a word with him. Writegeist (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I warned him about using an IP to edit in the above post. I think at this point either he is going to take a break and come back (good result), or he will self destruct (bad result).  If the Long Island IP is in fact Vegavairbob,  he knows what he is doing it wrong and will either stop or do it until he gets blocked.  It is out of my hands at this point. --Leivick (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Vegavairbob…again.
DJL, it looks as if Vegavairbob is getting off to a poor start on return from his break. On June 26, he added an image to Bumper (automobile). The image he added was clear and sharp, but not especially illustrative of the subject matter. On July 6, I provided a composite image, also clear and sharp, but considerably more illustrative of the subject matter. This morning, he reverted twice, each time with a belligerent, edit-warring summary. Zero discussion on talk page, zero attempt to see the matter from the standpoint of article improvement...he just wants his image in the article. This is more of his same ownership behaviour. It is not acceptable, and I believe your guidance is called for if he is to avoid quickly finding himself the subject of another AN/I. —Scheinwerfermann T·C 13:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Dan- I didn't delete his image. I don't want mine deleted either. mine was there first so I added mine back and it was deleted again. there is no reason why both can't be left in. Vegavairbob (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Dan- My image was deleted. I didn't delete his image. mine was there first so I added mine back on the left side and it was deleted again. there is no reason why both can't be left in. everytime I make an edit I'm acussed of ownership or vandulism. I didn't delete his image. I just added my deleted image back. One edit in weeks and its deleted. I'm fed up. Vegavairbob (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

VVB SPI
Say, DJL: WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vegavairbob —Scheinwerfermann T·C 05:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

…and yet *again*…
DJL, please see here. Vegavairbob, as IP 75.127.130.122, is still persistently inserting his pet image into Bumper (automobile), with insistent edit summaries and absolutely zero attempt to participate in the consensus-building process at Talk:Bumper (automobile). This is after you and others have warned him not to own articles, not to disregard consensus, and not to use an IP to circumvent consensus and sanctions (such as the 72-hour block he earned for this exact kind of behaviour, and which has not yet expired. He's kind of begging for another AN/I, eh? —Scheinwerfermann T·C 14:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What a mess, I thought my warning that he wouldn't get away with it was pretty clear. --Leivick (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

VVB/60Chevman
Hello, DJL. You predicted this, and now it may have come to pass. —Scheinwerfermann T·C 19:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What a mess, I thought my warning that he wouldn't get away with it was pretty clear. --Leivick (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Return of the Barbaro hoaxer
It looks like they are back, see Sockpuppet investigations/Mctrain. I suspect there are additional hidden socks considering they have used 2 different variable IPs before. Edward321 (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

hey
A while back you reverted text at the Sea of Galilee article claiming it was "highly pov"

I re wrote it, but it still gets reverted by user fipplet: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_of_Galilee&diff=306019388&oldid=306018622

Please look at the sources. Is there any reason why this text shouldn't be in the article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion?
Hi, DJL. Please take a look at. Notice the one article he's made a beeline for, and the small little edits he's been making, one of which is a direct reflection of his apparent beef with the term "straight-4 engine" and another of which reinstates text long-ago deleted from the article as OR and POV. Just for curiosity, I ran an ip2location check, and guess where it resolves to? Medford, New York, which is smack in the middle of Long Island. Remind you of anyone? I hear a quacking sound, how 'bout you? —Scheinwerfermann T·C 03:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

WRX STI
Thanks for your input on the article talk page, after reading everyone's comments I have put back "semi-automatic" Could you please keep an eye on the article as an admin? I am so aware of every rule in wikipedia and don't wish to fall foul of some weird rule get blocked or have the semi-automatic reference removed. Thanks. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely watching the article. Let me know if you have any questions or need any help. -Leivick (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sports Car International Top Sports Cars

 * 03:16, 9 June 2008 Daniel J. Leivick protected Sports Car International Top Sports Cars ‎ (far too many changes to a list that can't really be changed [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still considered necessary. This is part of my large scale review of all longstanding indefinite semiprotections. Please see the discussion I started at talk:Sports Car International Top Sports Cars. --TS 19:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, I made a brief response on the talk page. --Leivick (talk) 08:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Arizona Roughriders
01:50, 5 October 2009 Daniel J. Leivick (talk | contribs) deleted "The Arizona Roughriders" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) The Arizona Roughriders are a stunt team based out of Arizona no diffenet then ZeroGravity (stunt team) We have a full history of over 27 years and have now expanded I was not able to complete the page prior to deletion but did put the appropriate tag to give myself more time to complete it. At this time we 27 years of information coming in, to make the page complete and verifiable. The intention was not to be used for a promotional tool but as a reference and complete history. So I do believe I have to appeal to you before I can go any further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanNarciso (talk • contribs) 04:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BFAQ and WP:COI. The page was written in a highly promotional tone, that was not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  It would be far better to wait for someone else to create an article about your business as they would be more likely to write an appropriate article.  As for articles other promotional articles, you are welcome to nominate them for deletion through WP:CSD, but the existence of problematic content on Wikipedia is not a justification to keep additional promotional articles.  If you feel that my actions violated the speedy deletion criteria, you can take this to deletion review.--Leivick (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad Boys Blue
Not sure, why the edits of user 'BADBOYS BLUE' have more merit than what was kept on the page for quite some time? The article has clearly been vandalized since October 6; I did not revert all the changes, nor do I have intentions of keeping it unchanged, all I did was to make an initial attempt to begin valid revisions. Why was it reversed? Why was I insulted by the above mentioned user (see my talk page)? Why was the paragraph about the group transition in the 80's was obliterated in its entirety? Esoteriqa (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

And what conflict of interests do I have that should preclude me from editing on wiki? I have no business participating in this "marketplace quarrel", which has become out of Bad Boys Blue page. It needs to be revised appropriately. Esoteriqa (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is actually my mistake, I thought that you had written the post making legal threats on your talk page, when it was in fact another user. I don't have any reason to believe that you have a conflict of interest.  --Leivick (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, then without further ado, I shall revert the article to my last revision as of yesterday and will do more revisions based on that form as time permits, as long as I can be certain that my input will not go in vain. After all, I've been one of the two main editors who've maintained the page the way it was up until 3 days, and it never had any issues, until all of a sudden we had this nutcase jump in out of nowhere with a bunch of his so-called revisions and frivolous threats. Please keep the page on your watch list. Esoteriqa (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The version you reverted to still has serious neutrality issues. Calling a singer "legendary" or "unparalleled" is not how an encyclopedia refers to people.  I hope that you will be able to resolve these issues. --Leivick (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, it will be changed very soon. As a matter of fact, I'll change some of it now. Esoteriqa (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Barbaro family
I'd appreciate another set of eyes on this page. User:Jky52 has been repeatedly been deleting sourced, but negative info about the Barbaro family. while incorrectly dismissing a nonfiction source, claiming it's novel.  I added 5 new additional English and Italian sources. Jky52 blanked them again. Edward321 (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been watching this new editor closely given the history with this article. It does smell a little bit socky, but at this point I think engaging in discussion with them as much as possible.  Let me know if you need any further input.  --Leivick (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I responded to their less uncivil comment on the talk page. Their source is problematic.  They also keep insisting The City of Falling Angels is a novel - even though both the publisher and Amazon.com say its notfiction.  And they have no problem with quotes from that book that are positive about the Barbaros.  And they're ignoring the 5 other sources I found.  Thanks for chiming in. Edward321 (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jordan Belfort
Thanks for your help. Reaction93 doesn't seem to be listening tho - has just reverted for the fourth time. Splorksplorksplork (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Jordan Belfort's wiki-page
Sporksporkspork is controlling the Jordan Belfort page and is not allowing updates that reflect any of the current information, almost all of which is positive. He keeps reverting the page back to a series of four of five basic facts, which, for the most part, relate to things that happened 13 years ago and older. In consequence, this page is completely inaccurate that sporksporkspork intends on keeping it. Under the updated version, every word is both factual and taken from newspapers that have posted links. Sporksporkspoks version is a joke. However, if wiki thinks that there is some text that was from major newspapers that is too "salesy," then that's fair enoug. I would urge an independent moderator to make it more neutral. But the way sporksporkspork has it is not neutral. It is wildly negative, and right now, the news being published on Jordan Belfort is far more posyive than negative.

His tour is sponsored by companies like Virgin, Sheraton, and Fairfax Media -- all very large, well-respected companies. He does charity work for the salvation army, working drug-addicted kids, gives public motivational seminars, and is a frequent guest commentator on CNN, CNBC, BBC, and Sky News.

I look forward to more and more editors on this page, but to have one person, like sporksporkspork, who clearly has an axe to grind, controlling things is not fair or acceptable.

Thank you. Reaction 93


 * Absolute hogwash. This page has been repeatedly spammed by a series of usernames seeking to reproduce the sale pitch from Belfort's web page. Belfort is best known as a convicted corporate criminal, and the entry should reflect this. My only "axe to grind" is in service of neutrality and objectivity. You also seem to know a lot about Belfort personally - are you in any way connected to him? If so I urge you to read the guidelines on conflicts of interest.Splorksplorksplork (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * After Reaction's block expires, I suggest you both try to come to a compromise on the article talk page. I will be happy to act as a neutral mediator and guide the discussion productively.  I think the first step is for both of you to step back and drop the accusations.  I do ask that if Reaction has a personal connection with the subject that it be disclosed.  Further action will have to wait until tomorrow as I am already up way to late and have to work tomorrow morning. --Leivick (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Daniel: I would like nothing more than to handle this in a civil manner, so here are the facts: the current entry is incomplete, outdated, and, hence, slanted to the negative. I, personally, have no desire for this to be a "puff piece" or have any advertising-like edge to it whatsoever. I respect wikipedia as a powerful reference tool, and believe it is the wave of the future.

What I recommend is that you read the full article "The Wolf of Wall Street Back on the Prowl" which splorksplorksplork choice as a reference source. When you read it, you will see that the journalist was, in some ways, very negative towards Jordan Belfort. However, he was also very fair, because he also included Belfort's current life, since emerging from jail, which you can see is the polar opposite of his old life. Two of the passages you deleted, as spam, were taken directly from this article, which splorlsplorksplork used as a referecnce. These two passages are: (1) Belfort has built a new life as an author, father, entrepreneurship educator, motivator, life coach and philanthropist - he has been drug-free for 13 years; and (2) Belfort says four basic precepts were the foundation of his successful yet unethical business: the knowledge that by managing the state we're in, we can improve our performance; the understanding that we all have beliefs that at any time limit or improve our achievements, and that the former must be broken down and the latter boosted; the ability to impart to others the strategies to achieve success; and the ability to know that great standards of performance can always be made into exceptional standards. It's a smaller jump than from good to great. The references for these are:

Daniel, explain to how it is not fair and balanced to have both the good and the bad of someone's life in a wiki-entry? The journalist from the aforementioned article was obviously not biased towards Belfort; he was straight down the middle. That's why there must be quotes from various sections of the article, both the good and the bad. In addition, in the same article, the journalist makes reference to Belfort giving a motivational speech to the Melbourne Storm, a professional sport's club, a speech which the journalist called "a spellbinding address." In fact, that speech was part of a series of speeches, and the Melbourne Storm DID end up winning the "Premeirship." Here is a link to the full article: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26115995-2722,00.html

Also, I suggest that you click on the following link, which is a clip of a speech Belfort gave to Virgin Air, which is a world-sponsor of his tour, along with other multinational companies. After viewing this clip, you will see that even the passage that you referred to as too "salesy": "Typically motivational speeches ..." is, indeed, accurate, and is the reason Belfort is in such demand as a public speaker. The link is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGNeUuKHcCw&feature=PlayList&p=C5CBAA1785A8EA95&index=0&playnext=1

Lastly, this article must include (1) the fact that Warner Brothers is turning Belfort's life into a major motion picture, staring Leonardo Dicaprio and directed by Marty Scorsese, (2) The other passage you deleted about "Belfort gaining celebrity before falling into drug addiction." This is a key element both to Belfort's old life and new life.

In closing, I urge you to read the full article "The Wolf on the Prowl," then watch the Video Clips and do whatever other research you deem appropriate, and then go back and see if the entry I reversed (that someone else had already posted) was inaccurate. I have nothing against splorksplorksplorksplork and I apologize if my inexperience with wikipedia caused you or he frustration. However, as I'm sure you can see, the current entry is extremely msileading and must be updated. I look forward to you taking the first steps in getting this entry to where it should be. Then I will work, constructively, with splorksplorksplork or anyone else who is interested in achieving that end.

Thanks: Reaction 93 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaction93 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming to the discussion table, but this is not the place to discuss this. Please bring up specific things you would like to add with specific sources on the article talk page.  Also try to be more concise.  After looking over the sources I see another problem with what you were trying to add, they were direct quotes from the source and copyright violations.  You also really should disclose your connection with the subject as it is pretty clear that it is there. --Leivick (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I am confused. Who makes the decision of what goes on? I can't made an addition to the page without first going on the talk page, yet splorksplorksplork can? Or must he go to the talk page first too? Also, I am not a friend of Jordan Belfort nor do I work for Jordan Belfort. In fact, I am a fan of his two books, and I saw him speak in Australia three times. He was on TV almost every day there for over a month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaction93 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You wish to add something to the page, therefore you must achieve consensus to add it. You may want to take a look at some of Wikipedia's policies such as WP:CONSENSUS,  WP:RS and WP:NPOV.  My best suggestion for you is to go to the talk page and suggest specific additions along with sources and reasons these additions are needed. --Leivick (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, I was wondering why you have removed the "bestselling" from "bestselling author"? This is not inaccurate as it already said it further on in the text and is a true comment. I'm not trying to argue, just wondering. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardb23 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The addition of "bestselling", like "award winning" doesn't real tell the reader anything, it just sounds like it the article is trying to impress the reader. Let the subject's accomplishments speak for themselves.  Good articles on authors do not use this kind of language.  --Leivick (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ray Joseph Cormier
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ray Joseph Cormier. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Ray Joseph Cormier 3. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Seinfeld fictional films
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Seinfeld fictional films. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/List of Seinfeld fictional films (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello!
Hey Dan, how are you? Thanks for the welcome and Happy Thanksgiving. I'm currently working on the Corvette articles, starting with Chevrolet Corvette C3...adding text and images. This marque deserves some special attention. It should keep me busy for a while. Talk to you soon. Regards {Vegavairbob (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

Article rating
Hi Dan. Can the Chevrolet Corvette C3 article be moved up from the start class? (Vegavairbob (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Definitely looks like it can. You can change article status up to GA without any outside input.  It looks to me that it is at least a C class article at this point.  Take a look at the criteria and determine whether to make it a C or B.  It looks to me like it could use some more citations, but it is obviously past a start class.  Let me know if you need any other help.  --Leivick (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Dan, Up to GA...not including GA, right?...needs nomination for GA (and FL)? Can we make the Chevrolet Corvette C3 article C for now? I have more work to do on it (citations, text, new sections and images) Chevrolet Bel Air, Chevrolet Impala, and Chevrolet El Camino need class upgrades also. I checked out Bot...Not sure how to proceed. Thanks (Vegavairbob (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC))
 * C class is fine. GA requires a review.  You can just change the letter in the banner on the talk page to change the article rating. --Leivick (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Michael Riconosciuto
This page has been extensively vandalized by the sock puppets of Anne Teedham. Vandalism includes allegations of involvement in homicides of three women, which were removed several months ago when most of the sockpuppets were banned. The page cannot be left as it is. I spent a lengthy time reworking the page and did a revert after reporting a false positive from cluebot. Please compare the horror show you reverted to next to the fixed page, even the birth date was wrong. I do not wish to revert continually, would appreciate it if you would look closely at this page and do the revert yourself. Please keep in mind that there are active homicide cases involved and the subject of this article has been providing documentation in breaking news cases that have not yet been linked to this page. http://www.nbclosangeles.com/station/as-seen-on/Suspect_Arrested_in_Triple_Murder__Had_Been_Given_Immunity_Los_Angeles.html http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=8687765&nav=menu191_1_1_4 http://www.michaelriconosciuto.com/jpn The sockpuppet has also tampered extensively with related pages such as Inslaw, Danny Casolaro, Earl Brian and Lester Coleman. While massive changes may often be the result of vandalism, I assure you there has been nothing of the sort here. Should I be saving my edits more frequently? Would this set off fewer alarm bells?

Winksatfriend (talk) 07:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)winksatfriend

FL Rating
Dan- The Chevrolet Vega article was reviewed a few months ago. Several editors made issue lists of the article. All of the issues were addressed by myself and other editors. (see article talk and my talk pages) Does it have to be reviewed again for GA or FL. The article is complete to expert standards as per FL rating criteria. (Vegavairbob (talk) 10:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC))
 * It definitely still has to be reviewed. Feel free to list it again for GA or FA. --Leivick (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dan, Check out the Chevrolet Vega sections I recently added: new Origin section, Design & Engineering revision with factory images, new Development 1968-1970 section, and new Pricing section. I will do similar sections for the Corvette articles. Also, I've been working on Ford Capri and Mercury Capri. They will be further improved as well with references added. (Vegavairbob (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC))

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mctrain
Hello. Thank you for filing Sockpuppet investigations/Mctrain. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigations
I was one of the users, lumped in with the "socks", but I think there is confusion that maybe I can help you with. I was unblocked because I explained something to the administrator. I signed up an account through the educational system that I am involved with, which has both adults and students creating Wikipedia accounts through a few ranged IP's, that is the way the system is set up here. All of these people that you called socks, are not infact all the same people, just individuals tied to the same server. Each student/adult must create their own account, which is giving the impression of the same person, but they are not.

Without getting overly personal, this educational system is one connected to a particular noble individual whom attended here, which many of the students, as well as adult faculty, respect and admire. Many of these students want to add information about this individual to Wikipedia- of which the institution has a publish record of this individual's family history and accomplishments (up to a certain year). I think all of these students are in good faith (at least the vast majority of them), and I would expect that also some teachers may have tried to remedy certain articles related to VSB.

I would recommend a few things to you. First, VSB is not involved, and should not be accused. Second, what you are calling a hoax, is not accurate, and that accusation is getting many kids angry. I would recommend getting rid of the 'Barneca" list which shows up on google searches and makes students motivated to address this article within Wikipedia. If Wikipedia does not have information pertaining to this person (or any person for that matter) then say "he/she can not be verified" or "the information can not be verified". Don't say or label things a "hoax". That is very irresponsible and negative energy will fuel more negative energy, especially in this case which is not infact a hoax. VSB is very private and kind and highly respected in various circles.12qq (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This should be discussed on the sock puppet investigation page. I am moving it there. --Leivick (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Will close my thoughts over there12qq (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Kent Hovind
I recognize the potential copyright problem. However, an acceptable edit, where quotes are clearly fair use, verifying and expanding on the information might look like this:

"On 9 December 2009, the dissertation appeared on Wikileaks and became generally available on the Internet. An analysis of the leaked .pdf reveals that it lacks a title, any secondary references, a discussion of the relevant scholarship, typed page numbers, or a dissertation committee (most doctoral-granting institutions require multiple committee members to approve a dissertation, while Hovind's degree was approved by a single man)."
 * That seems ok to me, but is not the place to discuss it. Try bring it up on the Hovind talk page. --Leivick (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

RPGFan
Hi,

I have reviewed the guidelines, and I am in no way spamming. Different links have been included in each edit, and they are all appropriately cited in relation to a professional and reliable source. Please cease and desist further unwarranted edits. Also, please do not threaten other users with baseless claims unless you are better informed. Thank you!--Rapturous (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No all your links are to RPGFan. You are clearly here with the only purpose of promoting a particular website with which you appear to be connected.  This is a conflict of interest. See WP:COI. --Leivick (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * I have joined Wikipedia a long time ago and made other edits. I only recently decided to start adding links to RPGFan, which other users have also done.  There is no conflict of interests.  I have reviewed the spam page you linked me to with the recommended section, and I have no violated any of the numbered suggestions.  If #5 is of interest, I cannot help it if RPGFan is not recognized by a couple users who are being obtuse.  Thanks!--Rapturous (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless you have edited with a different account this not true. I can see all of your contributions and they are only adding links to a single website.  If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, I strongly suggest starting by doing something other than adding links.  --Leivick (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold on, you just said there is no conflict of interest and yet you are on the staff of this website. That just isn't going to fly, do not add links to RPGfan again or you will be blocked. --Leivick (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Chevrolet Corvette
Hi Dan. I started work on the main Chevrolet Corvette article. I added a revision tag. There was no infobox, I did a complete box with a new image, listed all powertrains with model year application. (generation articles have seperate infoxes for each generation which I will go through as well). I downloaded and added all new images through the third generation (so far) and revised and edited text. How does it look? I'm aiming for an FL review when finished. I will also address prose and references.(Vegavairbob (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Starting to look really good! Let me know if you need any help.  --Leivick (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly
Well said daniel, I am impressed that at the least one editor is paying attention, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually this is looking a bit more not correct, I have an IP which I am presuming is this editor, saying that they are not Gallina but they like his work, without otrs confirmation I would say there is a problem with the copyright. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe the next step would be to nominate the images for deletion. If the Mr1001 wants to confirm through otrs that he is Gallina or has Gallina's permission than he can do it.  If not the images should be deleted. --Leivick (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He is admitting that he has not got permission, they all need nominating actually deleting speedily asap, perhaps we need an admin..I will try and nominate them..they are here and at commons...damn.. Off2riorob (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have apologised and have contacted the author of the page I have been editing and he will arrange for the images to be re submitted with his permission. Since he is not familiar with, or is indeed interested in wikipedia editing how should he go about this? However I would like to point out that offtoriorob's crusade agaisnt the article about Gallina began simply when an edit of his on the "Peter Mandelson" page he regularly covers was reversed. True, the image was not correctly permissioned, but he only discovered that when he went to aggressively rearrange the article on Gallina. This seems to indicate a vindictive nature in his overall editing abilities Mr1001 (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats right, when I find out that a picture that I have been resisting in an article that has been replaced by IPs claiming it is iconic and then I start investigating and I find out that there are all these issues I deal with the discrepancies as I see fit. I feel here that rather than pointing the finger at me you should more take responsibility for your actions, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mr1001, please see WP:AGF. Assume good faith, I am positive that Off2riorob is acting in good faith here.  Accusing them of being vindictive is not ok.  I don't think they has anything against Mr. Gallina.  If these pictures are to stay, Mr. Gallina will have to contact Wikipedia directly and give up his rights to the reproductions.  As a photographer myself I know this is not all that easy to do, but the images are of a sufficiently low resolution that it shouldn't be much of problem.  To relinquish copyright on the low res images, he will have to go through the OTRS process which is detailed at WP:OTRS.  Let me know if you have any questions or need help with the process. --Leivick (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information Daniel, but can someone please rein in off2robrio? look at how he is currently rapidly and aggressively destroying my article peter gallina without giving me time to respond or using the talk page. If this is not vindictive, what is? Mr1001 (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Off2riorob's actions are not vindictive. Please try to understand that they are trying to improve the article as they see fit.  Reverting their actions is not helpful.  Take a look at WP:BRD to get an idea of how editing is accomplished.  Discuss specific issues on the talk page and please stop accusing other editor of bad faith, it just inflames the issue.  The article in its current state is clearly pro Gallina, when it should just be giving the facts.  --Leivick (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope to have obtained the correct permissions, from the author, for the photo previously used on Peter Mandelson. Can you please spare a moment to confirm that these have been done correctly. Thank you Mr1001 (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Thank you for taking an interest in the correctness of the article. I am going slowly through it to expand it correctly and your help is appreciated. I have corrected the article with explanation. However if your intention is to help, I am dissapointed to note that you did not respond to my above query and yet are very rapid at making editorial changes to the article. Mr1001 (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any need to respond. Other users had already answered you questions regarding image copyright release.  --Leivick (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Brazil
Daniel, could you please take a look in here and give your opinion about it? Thank you very much. The editor Rahlgd insists on adding information about projects that did not begin to be developed yet and are nothing more than plans. --Lecen (talk) 03:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Dan- Happy New Year!!! My Userpage has two animated images. They both stopped. The spinning globe at the beginning and the rotating barnstar at the very end. What caused this? Can you help fix them? Check out Chevrolet Corvette C1, Chevrolet Corvette C3, and Chevrolet Corvette (Vegavairbob (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Interesting... I'm not an expert in this area Bob. I went back and looked at old revision histories of your page and the animations don't work there either.  If you click on the animations their pages show them properly, but not on your page (or on my page if I try to add them their).  I think your best bet would be to bring it up at WP:HELPDESK hopefully someone their will be able to fix it for you or at least point you in the right direction.  Happy new year and great work on the Corvette article, let me now if you plan on nominating it for WP:FA. --Leivick (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Dan. My userpage images started working on their own again. Do you think Chevrolet Corvette is ready for a nomination? I need to add a brief History section at the beginning though.(Vegavairbob (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC))

Vandal
Hi Dan- Vandalism by 71.235.176.234 in Chevrolet Corvette Reverted the edit but not sure how to report or flag user. This user has other vandal edits as well. (Vegavairbob (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC))
 * No worries, vandalism happens all the time. This user only made one vandal edit to the Corvette page.  No action needs to be taken.  If this was an ongoing problem the page could be protected or the IP could be blocked, but in the case of random single edit vandalism, the cure is worse than the disease.  I am also redacting the phone number, no need to spread it all over the internet. --Leivick (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Al Qaeda article
Good catch. That should have been thousands rather than millions; thousands died in 9/11 alone. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * still unsourced and non neutral, how about we add a line to the US army page detailing the number of deaths they have been responsible for? This is a highly controversial article, I suggest you propose any changes you would like to make on the talk page first.  --Leivick (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)  --Leivick (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally thought it was appropriate to include along side the (also unsourced) mention of how many they've lost; it seems fair to mention both the amount of damage inflicted on their enemies and the amount of damage they've taken from the enemies respectively. Perhaps we should do the same at the United States Army article. I'll be happy to take it to the talk page. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 02:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have a problem with a neutrally worded and sourced causality estimate in the "attacks" sub section, but saying that "they have been responsible for x number of deaths" in the second paragraph is non neutral. I certainly would be surprised to find the US Army article saying "the US army has been responsible for x number of deaths" in the second paragraph or any for that matter.  Responsibility is a vague concept.  I would say that in some cases the US Army isn't exactly responsible for the deaths of enemy combatants as the political situation and choices of both US and foreign leaders actually lead to the deaths, likewise a supporter of Al Qaeda might argue that the policies of the US and Israel are what cause the deaths. --Leivick (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 02:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have contributed neutrally
you just dont like what i added. which is 100% fact from either Gabriel herslef or fellow neo-cons, that expose her exactly what she is a liar and a fraud who fabricates much of what she said.Denying people the right to be aware of this knowledge is dangerous because your helping to parade that phonie to be something she is clearly proven not to be.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have responded on your talk page. --Leivick (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

article title change
Hi Dan- I proposed an article change Straight-4 engine to Inline-4 engine. The change was approved. I forgot how to start the process for another article.I'd like to propose a title change for- Chevrolet Corvette CERV to Chevrolet Experimental Research Vehicles (CERV) The CERV I and CERV II do not resemble Corvettes, weren't referred to, or named Corvette. CERV III was the Corvette Indy show car, and the CERV IV was the C5 Corvette test vehicle built four years before the production car. The CERV I article was combined with the Chevrolet Corvette CERV titled article (which probably contained the CERV II through CERV IV). Regardless, Chevrolet Corvette CERV is an incorrect title for the article which is now the entire series of these research vehicles, some of which were not related to the Corvette and did not use the Corvette name at all in their descriptions. Only CERV was used as the name for all four cars in the series.(Vegavairbob (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Requested moves, I think that is what you are looking for. --Leivick (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Jaredkunz30
He blanked his talk page, but he has had generously numerous warnings concerning NPOV and civility. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

About nissan GTR.
Hello Daniel.

Iam doing some modifications to the Nissan GTR article because it's incorrect.

Nissan said that the Nissan GTR does not have lauch control funcion.

This comes on the owner's manual, so you cannot have values of acelleration based on lauch control because that funcion is not to use accordingly to Nissan and Owner's manual.

So you must respect the factory specifications and warranty. You cannot use a system not authorised by Nissan to get faster times.

I hope you read this and understand my point of view based on facts and not on personal tastes.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.90.85.64 (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I do understand what you are saying, however 0-60 times do not require that the warranty remain valid. You must provide a source that indicate that this it is more than your opinon that the times stated in reliable sources are invalid. --Leivick (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

hi
hi dude, these images are not accurate.. this images are just keeping to hurt the muslims... in fact really it wont hurt ... so I request you to read Quran and hadees to know about Muhammed ...

Thanks Fazal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazalca (talk • contribs) 19:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CENSOR. Wikipedia is not intended to follow Koranic law. --Leivick (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

problem user
Ucoocho is a new user. He's deleting text in all the Corvette articles lead sections without discussions. He is adding nothing just deleting text. He's telling me to read Wikipedia policy before making any edits. Do you know how much work I put into those articles? and I have to deal with this?{Vegavairbob (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC))
 * I don't see a problem with Ucoocho's edits. Editors are encouraged to be bold with their edits and some of the removals by this user look justified, some of the language they deleted was in fact unencyclopedic. I know you put a ton of work into these articles but you don't own them.  You need to be open to edits from other users even if they are only trimming without adding anything.  It looks like you have incorporated some of this users suggestions into your reversions which is great.  I really suggest you engage this user in a friendly way and try to work together, they maybe able to offer great collaboration.  If you two are having difficulties communicating I will be a happy to jump in and mediate, but at this point I think you will be able to work it out amicably.  Hope all is well with you other wise.  I will be trying to keep an eye on this. --Leivick (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A great team?...I add text and he deletes it, doesn't change it, or add to it, just deletes it. That's collaboration? Check his deletions on Corvette C4 lead the last couple of weeks. Just keeps deleting text from leads... Here's today's example. My edit, after changing it several times already-
 * Introduced for the 1984 model year, the C4 was the first fully redesigned Corvette in 15 years and was the most sophisticated to date; lighter yet stronger, roomier and more practical, and a better handler.


 * He changes it to this, deleting half the text-
 * Introduced for the 1984 model year, the C4 was the first fully redesigned Corvette in 15 years and was the most sophisticated to date..


 * He stated lighter but stronger is relative. Well its referenced and its a fact so it should stay, but he'll delete it again soon enough. He is not helping the article by deleting referenced information about the vehicle in the lead section. The lead is is to generalize but cover key points about the vehicle. He keeps reducing the size of the lead sections to a few sentences. If something isn't done about this there will be (Corvette) articles with short lead sections, and I won't continue day after day adding content back in. Next time I'll flag the article the lead is too short and let's see how long it takes to get a text addition (maybe sometime this year), if and when that user will have to deal with this. Thanks.(Vegavairbob (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC))
 * I understand your concern, but this is a collaborative project which anyone can contribute to. The changes he made are not in bad faith and in some cases actually improve the quality of the article.  You must learn to work with editors who disagree with you without calling them names.  There isn't any choice about this I can't stop this person from contributing.  All I can do is help you work together. --Leivick (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Fastest production car
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Fastest production car. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Fastest production car (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Mctrain
I have just posted some suspected socks there. Edward321 (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

check it out
Thanks Dan I'm fine. Check out the Chevrolet Corvair article. I did a lot of revisions; text additions, generation sections added, more new sections, new headings, new production table, new gallery, added some new images, and restructuring. Let's nominate for GA of FL. (Vegavairbob (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC))

Massimo
claims to be "H.E. the Prince Massimo, Prince Don Fabrizio Massimo Brancaccio" and is adding that claim to Massimo He started by removing sources to insert his unsourced claim. A couple IPs repeated Massimo's removal of sources to make the claim, while adding a source that gets vastly less GScholar hits than the one he removed.   Fabritius then repeated the same                      eventually adding a sources before his birth and the websites of some private clubs (that don't seem to mention his claims) to "prove" he is the rightful head of the Massimo family. The page was locked and good deal of time spent on the talk page trying to explain Conflict of Interest and Reliable Sources to Fabritius, which he ignored. Edward321 (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

= AfD nomination of footytube == Hi Daniel. I am new to wikipedia and this is my first article. As you can see I have spent quite a lot of time editing and trying to get it right, and enjoyed the process immensely. It would be great if you could send me some pointers as to where I have gone wrong with the referencing before I contribute my next article. I believed that pretty much everything in the article had been referenced well from sources on the internet - I used Quantcast and Alexa for the site stats and linked.in and the about page to get the staff data. I also referenced mentions the website received in The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph, both reputable sources. And having been listed in The Daily Telegraph's top 25 football websites of 2009, this surely asserts notability? The trivia I got from the forums on the site, having spent the last 2 years as a member I am pretty knowledgeable on the behind the scenes stuff there. Any advice you can give as to how I can improve these references would be most appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliebaudry (talk • contribs) 04:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Your Proposed Delete of the Main Force Patrol page
I have reverted your good faith deletion/redirection of the Main Force Patrol page. I ask you to bring this up in discussion before doing something so extreme. If a consensus agrees that it should be blitzed, that's all good. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Donjon Entry
The article, which was previously deleted, will have references to news media publications showing their significance. How do I resubmit for review?
 * I'm not sure what article you are referring to as Donjon is a redirect to keep and there is already an article on Dungeon (comics) which is called Donjon in French. If you are referring to another topic than you are free to recreate the article at anytime.  However there is no guarantee it will not be deleted again.  If you like you can create a draft in your user space and ask myself or another editor to review it to see if any changes need to be made.  Let me know if you need any further help.  --Leivick (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I see the article you are talking about Donjon Marine. However it appears you are affiliated with the company this means that you have a conflict of interest.  Take a look at Wikipedia policies regarding this and the FAQ for businesses at WP:COI and WP:BFAQ respectively.  Personally I don't think you should be writing articles on businesses you are affiliated with, however you are not specifically prohibited from doing so.  --Leivick (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

page deleted..??
sir, why has been a page Himanshu Salathia created by me been deleted ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Himmy.20 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Both articles were deleted because they did not assert any notability. The first article said that you were a student and the second said you were a counterstrike player, neither is a likely indicator of notability.  It doesn't appear that you have been covered in depth by any reliable sources. Please read WP:COI and WP:AUTO writing articles about yourself is highly discouraged.  --Leivick (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

@Daniel J. Leivick- Thank you very much for guiding me and will the page Rayat Institute of Engineering and Information Technology be deleted. And sir one more thing, can I feel free to ask you anything regarding wikipedia whenever I face some or the other problem ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Himmy.20 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Rayat Institute appears to be perfectly notable and wont be deleted. While you added a lot of helpful information, much of it is worded like an advertisement it would be good to go through it and reword some of it.  You are of course welcome to ask me if you need any help with Wikipedia, good luck editing in the future. --Leivick (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sir, can you please highlight the areas to be reworked upon. I shall be thankful to you. Himanshu Salathia 20:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Himmy.20 (talk • contribs)
 * The "Department of Career Development and Placements" section is probably the main problem area, it reads like a brochure for the school. I changed a couple of words that weren't encyclopedic, but other than that it isn't too bad. On a different note, you should sign your post by adding four tildes ( ~ ) to the end. --Leivick (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Roger that. So should i delete this section ? Himanshu Salathia 21:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Himmy.20 (talk • contribs)
 * I would try to reword it so it states the facts simply without sounding like an ad. Think about how an encyclopedia that is not written by a student of the school would sound and try to mimic that.  If I get a chance I might try to clean it up myself. Try signing your next talk page post with the tildes to see if you can get it to work.  --Leivick (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC