User talk:Daniel J. Leivick/Archive 1

Boxcar Children

I notice you reverted back from my edit to put the list of books in the article itself. Please see the Hardy Boys, the Three Investigators, and Junie B. Jones as examples of articles about series that include the list of books in the series in the article. I felt like my edit made the article better, so I have put it back in. If you still feel it _must_ be changed, let's talk about it on the talk page for the article.

No worries, I liked it the other way but is no big deal. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment

So what is the deal with your deletion of my group page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bstein80 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 8 February 2007

I posted your article for deletion because it did not appear to meet WP:NOTE. In order for an article to survive on Wikipedia the subject needs to have been mentioned in a non trivial fashion in multiple reliable sources. Since the article asserted some notability but did not provide sources, I nominated it for deletion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Conservatives of California. The nomination lasted four days during which time eight established editors concurred with my position and voted to delete, there were no editor who voted to keep the article and no sources were provided. If you would like you can request that the deletion be reviewed, but without sources it is unlikely anything will come of it. Beyond notability there was the conflict of interest issue. As I explained when you first created the articles it is not appropriate to create or substantially edit articles about yourself or organizations that you founded; see WP:COI. Usually if an organization or person is notable a page will be created without the subjects input. Don't take any of this personally, I nominate hundreds of pages for deletion and bear no ill will towards you (vandalism not withstanding) or you organization, good luck editing in the future. --Daniel J. Leivick 06:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel your pain, BStein. --SteveWorek

Comment

Hi Daniel

No worries happy to do a joint exercise.

Cheers

Greg

"I don't beleive there is a hard line for when a kitten becomes a cat"

Thats why your a Mechanical Engineering student and not an animal doctor so shut the fuck up and edit topics you actually know.

Space warfare

Howdy! I saw that you changed the caption on Space warfare. That's fine, but I'm a bit worried about a comment you made to the effect of 'no humor allowed on Wikipedia' and what seemed like a bit of an admonition to the last person who put it in. On the contrary, Wikipedia has a fine tradition of humor, as long as it doesn't interfere with the article. The caption you removed brought levity in a non-disruptive fashion, and in my personal opinion, is the type of thing that exemplifies why Wikipedia is better than some of the stodgier sources. If you still feel it _must_ be changed, let's talk about it on the talk page for the article. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:3RR. Simply reverting the change you disagree with over and over again is not acceptable. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

(Just as a side note this admin was mistaken as I had only reverted the page twice in 24 hours and three times total.) Daniel J. Leivick 03:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

CltFn

Hello Leivick. Since you seem to be currently in a dispute with user CltFn, I would appreciate your comment here. Thank you. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Six Day War

The sun being behind an attacking contingency of aircraft is not going to make a difference when the enemy is not even off the ground yet. This is the beauty of a preemptive strike. Not to mention that user's edits could have been phrased better and trimmed heavily. I personally know this user, and he had no idea what he was talking about. If it's going to stay, it at least needs to be tweaked a little. Aaрон Кинни (t) 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at your reversion of my reversion. You tweaked it enough. And I suppose it makes sense. But I'd still like to see it referenced. And as regards the other user, I did not attack him in any sort, I just provided constructive criticism. I'm sorry you interpreted my remarks that way. Aaрон Кинни (t) 01:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Alela Diane

I'll get back re notability, though because of other commitments it may take me a day or two. Given she already has 45,000+ Google references and a wide range of favourable international music reviews, recognising her importance and lasting quality, I hope it will not be an issue. Ghmyrtle 23:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'll add some references to meet the notability criteria anyway. Ghmyrtle 23:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Focus Group Holdings Limited

I've removed the speedy delete tag, not 100% certain its spam the founder is sufficiently notable that there maybe enough information to establish notability, suggest that you nominate it through WP:AfD. Gnangarra 06:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"prod" on an academic journal

Daniel J. Leivick, I have to confess I was surprised to see a PROD on New York Review of Science Fiction, which is an academic journal. With all due respect, the standard of having third-party articles written about the work isn't going to really work on an academic journal. Academic journals are notable for their citation factors, for publishing well-reputed authors, and so on. You will never find third-party "articles" written "about" the vast majority of influential publications -- there are maybe only a tiny handful, less than a dozen, scholarly journals that are themselves "newsworthy". But newsworthiness is not the only criterion of notability. These are the kinds of questions that are trying to be addressed at Wikipedia:Notability (academics); we hadn't realized, I think, that people would be diligently trying to delete articles for academic journals as well as for scholars & academics. I'm going to work on those proposals, but in the meantime, I strongly suggest to you that PROD is inappropriate for an article on an academic journal. --lquilter 05:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the prod was inappropriate. An AfD could have been a better choice. My problem is there is a lack of verifiability, it is hard to say that journal is important without any sources. The information in the article is partly verifiable from the journal itself but any commentary as to its importance in the SF world is as far as I can tell unavailable. I have to confess my main reason I put up the prod is that I found out the Hugo nominations are really just fluff as anyone can nominate. I think it is misleading and at the very least a note should be put in the article. In any case it needs some kind of reference an article cannot be entirely self referenced. Thanks for you collaboration. --Daniel J. Leivick 05:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • The Hugo nominations are not "fluff" in the sense of the word that you apparently using. They are akin to Oscar nominations for films. The nominations are made annually by members of that year's WorldCon, ie, 4 to 8 thousand science-fiction fans who have paid perhaps $100 to attend that convention AND to be allowed to vote for the Hugos. They are, in a sense, the most knowledgeable 5,000 people in the world about matters of science fiction. At the end of a certain period of time, tabulations of all those works nominated are narrowed down to the top 5 vote-getters in each category. This is essentially the same way that Oscars are generated -- they are voted upon by various members of the Hollywood community -- NOT by everyone in the United States who goes to movies. Most SF writers will tell you that winning a Hugo nomination for his/her work probably doesn't translate into actual dollars from a publisher but they act all eager to win at least a nomination and you will frequently see reeditions of books with a "Hugo Nominee" blurb on the cover. Hayford Peirce 18:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

While I definitely see that NYRSF is notable enough for an article and have dropped any plans to nominate for an AFD I do take issue with this comparison. Paying 100 dollars to go to a convention does not mean that these people are experts in the SF field. Also while 4 subjects get nominations for each Oscar, it seems that Hugo nominations are effectively unlimited. In any case I accept NYRSF notability. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to have read what I wrote: thousands of SF fans initially nominate maybe dozens of works in each category. The top *five* vote-getters in each category then become official nominees. Five, and no more than five. In each year there are NOT hundreds of "Hugo Nominees" -- there are 5 novels, 5 novellas, 5 novelettes, 5 short stories, and so forth. The fans who vote for them are not perfect, of course, but they are more knowledgeable than a random 5,000 Joe Blows off the street. And if they're willing to spend the money, and take the trouble to fill out the ballots, it seems to me that they probably know more about S.F. than any other group of 5,000 people that you could put together. Hayford Peirce 19:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its clear if this was publication received an official nomination or not. In any case this is basically a dead discussion, as there is no challenge to the notability of the NYRSF.--Daniel J. Leivick 19:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not going to be important to the "SF world"; it's important to the "SF studies" world. The Hugo thing is obviously just trivia, as all the SF articles are full of. It's a thorny problem, because "sourcing" is just not going to be easy for academic journals -- and I'm not just talking about this one, I'm talking about Cell, one of the top three publications in biology; and similarly significant journals in every field. They're simply not "newsworthy". Their significance is found by looking at things like citation factors, but depending on how you do it, that could almost constitute WP:OR. Anyway, please try to remember that a lot of the policies to date have had their kinks worked out on popular media topics, and more esoteric academic things are still being worked on. You might try contributing at WP:Notability (academics) and similar projects -- we need more people. Best, --lquilter 05:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting one. I took a look at the academics notability discussion and assuming that we can transfer this policy discussion to journals, I am still a little troubled. The only criteria that the NYRSF could really meet is being cited frequently. I don't know if it is cited, but if it is then we might have some were to go. The problem in my mind boils down to this: without sources we can't have an article. This seems to be at the core of what an encyclopedia is. As a quick aside in the interest of full disclosure, I found this article after having a rather crumby experience dealing with one of its editors during a debate about her violation of WP:AUTOrules. In any case my I think my arguments for deletion are still valid, if you wouldn't be too upset I think I will post it as an AfD and drop the prod. --Daniel J. Leivick 05:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I already killed the prod per WP:PROD. I'm not upset by wikipedia policy; if you want to re-post as AFD, go ahead; but I can tell you already that it will be a waste of time because anybody who does SF criticism can point out that NYRSF is notable. On the other hand it may be that wikipedia is so dominated by fanboys & fangirls that academics don't notice this kind of thing; if so, and if the page is deleted, then it's indicative of the very real problems discussed at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) -- people seeking to apply the wrong criteria of notability to academic subjects, and simply not being able to adequately assess them. Not to bring up the pokemon test, but, this is the kind of problem that academics have dealing with wikipedia, and it's why wikipedia is so very, very detailed for every last detail of marginal TV series, and so thoroughly inadequate in anything other than popular culture.

Being cited frequently is the kind of criterion for notability that an academic journal would need. Unfortunately, that data is available only for the sciences & social sciences (SCI and SSCI), and is expensive & hard to get. Other than that, you simply need to manually scan the literature to see how frequently the thing is cited; review the literature and scholarly discussions to see the impact it is having in the field; review the people published in it to see what caliber of authors are published; or review the publishers to see the caliber of publishers. Under any of these criteria, NYRSF is up there with Extrapolation, Foundation, and SF-Studies.

Finally, if you're coming to this from a contentious dispute on the Cramer article (I went to Cramer's page to see a really appalling set of pointless disputes there too), you really might want to consider whether your concerns are well founded. Setting aside any concerns about Cramer, David Hartwell is of high repute in the SF criticism community; and numerous editors on the Cramer page have asserted her personal notability and the notability of NYRSF. So, to me, that question should be settled; and people should be turning their attention to improving things, not pointlessly reiterating the various indicia of academic notability. --lquilter 07:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Actually I just looked up Cell (journal) for comparison, b/c Cell is the #1 biology-specific journal; second only to the general science journals Nature & Science, and with two major medical journals. The entry basically has no cites, although because it's in the sciences it can include an impact factor. But this is one of the top scientific journals, and it suggests that your criteria for academic journals is a tad -- off. --lquilter 07:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It has so far been accepted that al peer-reviewed academic journals are notable. and I do not think that there is much chance that it will be changed, per WP:SNOW. The N criteria that apply for most WP articles actually do not apply to a whole range of media, especially web media,and have always been interpreted flexibly. But I would like to convince you:

• An academic journal is notable because of what it is and what it does. A journal publishing notable articles is notable, and the articles are established as being notable by the people who write them, as is shown by their being cited. Essentially all journals are cited, some more than others. whether they are every last one of them notable is open to discussion, but certainly the ones that are listed in major indexes and held in major libraries are.
• Its easy to meet any one of a number of technical criteria, and by all the versions of N for science and N for academics, meeting a single criterion is enough. if two or more articles have be cited by different journals of acknowledge notability it meets the requirement, and all journals can meet that. By analogy with other media--textbooks establish notability if they are used in two or more universities, and all journals actually do meet that. Just as the notability of authors is one of the factors for books, so the editor's notability establishes the journals. The notability of the society that sponsors it establishes the notability.
• Consider where we find journals that a NN, as judged by their being not an RS: in pseudo science, it frequently turns out that the journals is published and edited by a person and his associated organization, is never cited by other journals, never publishes work by authors who publish in other journals, are listed in n indexes, and held by no research libraries. Think about it. DGG 04:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

apologies for miswording, I meant, "please think about this subject a little more, for you may not have seen all the aspects"DGG 06:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hasty speedy?

No problem and quite understandable in the circumstances. Allowance is made for those in the "front line" – and that's official! [1] Tyrenius 06:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wannsee conference

Why did you chang "Hitler" to "Hilton"? --Anthony.bradbury 18:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not (at least intentionally). I reverted some vandalism with the undo button, I guess it is possible that the prior version had already been vandalized and I reverted to it. If I was going to vandalize I would be a little more creative. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, that must be it. It reverted under your login, but looking at your edits it really, really did not look like your style. My apologies for perhaps appearing to accuse you. A tip - some articles, such as this one, attract vandals as a honeypot attracts bees. If there is no definitely clean version to revert back to, it is worth reading through after you have reverted the obvious vandalism. Sometimes these more subtle vandalisms pass unnoticed, and persist through or into several reversions.--Anthony.bradbury 16:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page and Stuff

Hey thanks for sending me that message about Minor Edits, I didnt concider that a big edit so I checked Minor Edit, anyway I read up on Minor Edits and it won't happen again. It took me about 5 minutes to figure out how to send you a message, you should check thatgamecompany's wiki page to, I changed the release date for "flOw" under Playstation 3, and signed my name there, I didn't know if I was supposed to do that or not. Whitey 04:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Just for future reference it is usually best to respond to your talk messages on your own talk page as I am have your talk page on my watchlist so I can see when you respond. You definitely don't need to sign your edits on a main space article as you did on thatgamecompany's page. You should sign on all talk page edits though that way we can see who is saying what, just use four tildas (~) in a row and wikipedia will do the rest. As for the trolling page, I agree that the page should mention game trolling, but we need to have referenced info see WP:RS also something as specific as trolling in a particular game is probably not needed, unless it is a documented issue. I am going to post this same message on your talk page in case you are not watching my talk. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

flOw

Hey Daniel, how do I change the title of a page? On flOws page the title is "FlOw" and that's not the title, the creator of the game, Jenova Chen, specified it as "flOw", with the lowercase F because of what it means, flow is a psychological term for when your mind tunes out the rest of the world and you are "one with what you are doing", or as a gamer would say "in the zone". Thats what his game is all about, is to get people to "flow" with it. So it would only make sense to have the title of the game flow because you can't deny that "flOw" flows better than "FlOw" ;) --Whitey 23:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend making a new page with the same content as the old page but with the right title. Next you will want to turn the old page into a page the redirects to the new one. To do this replace the old page with "#redirect flOw". Hope thats clear. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

How do I add a reference? I went to edit the references for flOw so that I could tell people where I got all the information from and all it said in the edit page was "refer|3", I got the information from Jenova Chen myself (he's the creator of flOw) so it's all true.--Whitey 02:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources, it explains everything you need. You cannot however source info from yourself. It must be a verifiable source like a book, magazine or webpage that meets WP:RS. Let me know if you have any questions. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Lunchtime soccer

you haven't really made a proper argument about the pages deletion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Sorry for being glib, but your comments in the AfD were probably inadvertently self defeating. When you say that it is not possible to source an article from reliable sources you might as well say delete this article, as all article require reliable sources by definition. Also you should avoid childishly vandalizing peoples userpages (as you did to mine) even when not logged in as you may still be blocked for it. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Feb 25 Spinal Tap discography edit

I must insist that the last revision of the Tap discography (before you reverted it back to only the 'real albums') was NOT me; in fact, I had not visited that article for several days. I also don't appreciate being blamed for something that obviously didn't even come from my IP address!! --Steve Worek

Sorry for assuming it was you. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Knitty notability

Hi, I just did a lot of work on the entry for Knitty. It should be up to your standards now, it certainly is hard to prove notability of a publication. I looked at entries for a number of print and online magazines (such as Artforum, New Republic, Salon, etc) and have found no citations on any of those entries about the notability of the subject. If you insist I can pull a number of citations from various thrid party books and journals citing Knitty, although that seems to not have been needed for a number of other similar entries concerning topics of interest to other narrow subcultures. Perhaps your particular problem with the Knitty entry may be because it is a topic related to a subculture you yourself are not interested in? I assure you that knitting is no less important that mnany other seemingly trivial subcultures. Thanks! ETA: ps, knitty.com's alexa rank is currently 27,056. Please do let me know if you need citations, either online or print. All the best, Fathomharvill

Looks good to me. Notability is hard to establish for that kind of publication, but it looks like you did a good job, thanks. --Daniel J. Leivick 15:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

LAX (group)

Thanks for monitoring the LAX page. They're just a little put-together band, but they've had enough publicity to get a wee article, but a proper one. KP Botany 05:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on the publicity that LAX is getting ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micha851 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 9 March 2007

Sorry but I don't have any idea. Someone else made that comment. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't have any idea, either. I simply rewrote the article from the references I could find. What publicity do you mean, and please put the question on the talk page for the article, where better informed editors may be able to help you, but be specific about what you saw that you are asking about. KP Botany 03:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I think there is confusion resulting in another user not signing their comments. I was responding to there question not asking you. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I assumed you were responding to the unsigned question, as I didn't ask one. Nonetheless, if they're monitoring, they can post on the band talk page any more questions along these lines. KP Botany 03:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The further problems concerning....

I have been having a difficult time adding anything to Wikipedia because, alas! my book is not yet published; so I cannot use material that may be copywritten and thus violate my own publisher's exclusive rights to my book. Unfortunatel I have the material; which relates to various areas of Wikipedia's vast collection of information. I do hav other sources and references that I could draw on from Idries Shah to a dozen other authors; but I don't quite know had to add references to my additions except "inside" the actual articles themselves. That the Who were the first to "project" Sufi teachings and concepts into the West is in my book of course; it's just there I can supply the context which I cannot do at Wikipedia due to lack of space. I love Wikipedia; is ther some gnome or fairy that could "pre-edit" my stuff so I won't get into trouble with the editors? I mean no harm; I just want to add the "missing" information to those pages which "ask" for it; am I an expert? Unfortunately yes; but how to be approved by Wikipedia I have little or no idea.

  thanks for your timeUnicorn144 13:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

a few more little questions

How can I develop an article somewhere where my research can be put up where everyone can see where I got these ideas and concepts I am trying to interject to "balance" the pages??Unicorn144 13:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see that you definitely want to help improve Wikipedia, I can also see that you may have some misunderstandings about how this project operates. When people say "unsourced" they mean that the information cannot be verified from a reliable source. A reliable source is not an expert, it is a piece of writing written by an expert (your book may become a reliable source) see WP:RS. If you want to add material that is sourced you will probably have to source it yourself, WP:CITE provides instructions as to how this is done. I when I took a look at your additions and I think you might want to make an effort to make them easier to understand for someone who is not an expert in the field, also when writing about religious beliefs you need to make it clear that this is something that certain people believe not absolute fact. Finally if you want to write something without it being torn down, you can use your userpage, once you get it the way you want you can post it on the talk page for specific page to which it pertains and get input from other editors. If you have any other questions please ask, good luck editing. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's MY talk page!

It's MY talk page; and if I want to clean it up, it's MY choice, not yours! Discpad 00:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to remove content from talk pages as you did twice to this page and it is not clean up when you only remove comments regarding conflicts. Talk pages can be used by other editor to see how a particular user has interacted with people in the past and should not be altered to present a particular view. See WP:TALK --Daniel J. Leivick 00:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Terry Shannon

Daniel, I see the problem now as to why you write the way you do about asking for "references:" There's a whole other world in the printed realm before the Internet! Terry Shannon's Introduction to VAX/VMS was printed in 1985 -- The same year you were born. Dan Schwartz, Expresso@Snip.Net Discpad 04:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, one of Terry's Charlie Matco coffee mugs is on display in the Computer History Museum down the road from you in Mountain View. Discpad 05:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed by I voted to keep the article. As for printed sources, I suggest that if you have access to them you add them as refrences to the article, there is no reason they should not be included. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

American Idol contestants

I am planning to restore List of American Idol contestants and revamp it, working from the original version deleted from the AfD debate and not the current version. See Talk:American Idol#Restore List of American Idol contestants? for more detail. Don't worry, I am not going to include every contestant from the show. I'd appreciate your comments. Thanks. Tinlinkin 04:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sideshow Cinema

Please don't withdraw the nomination of Sideshow Cinema as I and another editor at least don't agree with the article being truncated. I see no reason why the actors who make up Sideshow Cinema should be deleted and would like to resolve the question of the article. User:Plank has reverted the edits and has openned up discussion of the actors on the talk page. I agree with Plank and would like the vote to continue. I have personally put a lot of work into adding information and sources to the article. And since the actors are an integral part of Michael Legges Sideshow Cinema I think they should be discussed within the article. Dwain 00:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my withdrawal. However I do see that Sideshow Cinema probably meets notability standards. On the other hand I support removing the list of actors bios from the page. I will discuss this on the talk page for Sideshow Cinema. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Rx7 page

Hey Dan, Why did you edit out the blurb on the 12a's ability to produce massive backfires? Fellow scholars may find this information to their liking. Somebody researching 12a's would surely want to know the most interesting fact about that particular engine, so myself and fellow rx7 enthusiasts would like to see the edit reversed. It is unfair for you to deprive everyone from this precious information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.165.121.225 (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Something like that needs to be sourced. If you can provide a source please go ahead and put it back. --Daniel J. Leivick

Rx7 page

Our you serious? Some people use Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia. Not a personal playground. It is obvious that you would rather play virtual police chief instead of contributing to entries. As far as the sources are concerned I am the source. I own and drive an Rx7, and anybody that has ever driven or tinkered on one can tell you the 12a is a backfiring machine. The first thing you notice about the car is the awkward exhaust tone. You call yourself an engineer, so it shouldn't be hard for you to put one and one together. The 12a's air pump, ignition timing, and carburetor contribute to the backfires that set it apart from the rest. In the future, try enjoying Wikipedia for what it is. You may learn something. Chief! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.165.121.225 (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Please cool down a little. See WP:ATT and WP:CIVIL, then get back to me, I would be happy to work with you on this. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dan, "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source(WP:ATT)." This is what I did. Don't edit something because it may seem out of place. There are only 4 references on the entire RX7 page, so I guess you should just delete all those "things that don't belong". Please feel free to abide by the sames rules. For instance, "When editors weigh the pros and cons of whether a change is an improvement, it may be difficult to criticize text without being subjective about the situation. Editors, in trying to be clear, can be unnecessarily harsh on the giving end(WP:CIVIL)." It seems as if a complete delete of my edit would quilify as an "unnecessarily harsh" criticism. Also, refrain from your, "Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling", "snipped rambling crap") (WP:CIVIL)". Um, Sounds like "deleting things that don't belong".

Thanks for reading the policy. However your claim that your addition is a straight foward mathematical or logical deduction is not correct. Straight forward deduction would be like converting kW to hp or taking the heights of two mountains and saying that one is taller than the other, not making generalizations about engine configurations and backfiring. I am sorry if you were hurt by my deletion, but I watch alot of pages and it is a constant battle to keep junk out (not to say what you added was junk) if additions are uncontrolled pages quickly fill with unsourced and questionable informatnion weakening the page to the point of uselessness. You do seem intent on attacking my editing practices I don't really know why, if you look at those sarcastic edit summaries you will see they are always in reference to pure vandalism. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dan, I edited all the stuff on the Rx7 page, so now all you need to do is mark the citation after the first paragraph. I left all the reference information there for you to see. Since you are the edit master you can mark the citation yourself. Please Dan practice what you preach. You can delete half of the pages on any one entry on Wikipedia because they do not list the reference information. Of course if you did this you would weaken the page to the point of uselessness. Also, backfiring is not a generalization. It is an effect. How can one mountain be taller than the other, and one engine not backfire more than others.

Thanks for sourcing the info. As you can see it is no big deal to have to source your additions, but I have been in your position before with people demanding sources for things that I wanted to add and assumed were common knowledge. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, your wrong! It is a big deal to have to cite additions. I have wasted a lot of time trying to set you straight.

Alright I have given you the benefit of the doubt and have been nothing but friendly and helpful to you, yet you have been nothing but hostile and rude. I was going to just assume that the info is in the Haynes manual, but given your attitude I guess I better check to see if it specificly refers to what you say it does. If you don't like adding citations go some where else, some wikis like Uncyclopedia doesn't require them. WP:ATT is totally clear on this subject and if you can't abide by the rules you wont be editing here for long. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I have been helpful to you. Unfortunately you still use Wikipedia as a personal power trip. The information is on pages 65 and 82, but if you like you can come done here to Georgia and I will show what a real car can do. Maybe you will like a little American ingenuity, or you can call me a redneck and drive home in your pretty little Porsche.

I don't even know what to say. I can't tell if you are kidding or not. Oh well at least I am laughing. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to say anything. If you took Wikipedia seriously you would get rid of your nice little user page, and you would take a chill pill on your so righteous editing. You don't get cool points for making threats about the administration of Wikipedia. I challenge you to make good on your word and delete everything that doesn't have a cite. good luck.

Boy you are an angry guy. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dan, People question wikipedia's reliability because of edit mongrels like yourself. I would like to see the wikipedia entries you are referencing when you say that unsourced information weakens a page to uselessness. If you cannot show me a Wikipedia page, How can I take you seriously? I mean, you only trust someone if they cite it.

I am not going to argue with you over the need for citation, if you don't like the policy you can bring it up on the talk page WP:ATT. Your issue seems to be a personal one with me, if you think I am a jerk based on my user page and edit history that is fine, but I am not going to argue with you. --Daniel J. Leivick 22:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well your right. My problem is with you. I have a problem with anybody that attempts to be an Officer Barbrady. Listen Dudley, that's Dudley Do-Right, I don't think your a jerk. You are an incompetant fool. You only take the high road so you can dodge your unintelligence. Thanks for your editing. I am so glad all of us in the wikipedia world are shielded from "things that don't belong." We really are blessed to have you as our guardian. Tell me when you get a chance to read through the Haynes Manual.

Please find another outlet for your anger. I will not respond to any further insults. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

hey man, what insults? I have been nothing but friendly and helpful to you. So Dan, have you checked the haynes manual yet? What do you think?

Fatimah

I am in the process in cleaning up this article; but O don't know how to put it back; I am a bit of a "geek" when it comes to computers and such. I am. of course, only trying to add what is one of the most unusual aspects of Christianity/Islam meeting in the "production" of the current "Lamb of God"; which is written of in my book. Anyway, I want this to be included; I will try to get it to Wiki-standards quickly Unicorn144 13:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to put the sufic section back you can just copy paste it. I would first try and clean it up so that it understandable to some one who does not have much background in this area. I would also avoid quoting the bible or koran as fact, as this leads to a non NPOV situation. Finally just as a quick note you have been putting four tildas (~) in you edit summaries which does nothing. Signing posts is just for talk pages, the edit summary should describe the nature of the edit, ie "clean up" or "fixed spelling". Thanks and good luck. --Daniel J. Leivick 15:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD tag for Scott Jackson (Journalist)

Thanks so much for finding the previous AfD discussion for the Scott Jackson (Journalist) article. When I noticed the article creator had improperly removed your CSD tag, I couldn't locate the AfD discussion so I used the {{nn-bio}} speedy tag instead. Sorry – I should have just restored yours. Anyway, good catch on that one, and I see it's just been handled by an admin. -- Satori Son 23:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Equipment of the Colonial Marines

Hi. For some reason, some anon has taken it upon himself to expand this to ridiculous proportions, when it was debatable to start with. However, we have already more or less decided that this article should be deleted (see afd discussion). MadMaxDog 09:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that, it is also a copy right violation as what the anon has added is very close to what is in the tech manual. I had some interaction with this anon recently when they added a fictitous discription of a weapon to the page, it can be seen on the talk page. I am not sure they complete understand what is going on with Wikipedia. --Daniel J. Leivick 14:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Homelessness article

Hi Daniel. Thanks for joining us in keeping the article on Homelessness in order despite massive vandalism happening regularly. Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 23:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC) (talk)

Thanks I appriciate the encouragment, besides reverting vandalism keeps me busy when it is slow at work. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Daniel. You're very welcome ! I know what you mean about when things are s-l-o-w. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 01:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC) (talk)

Please warn vandals after reverting their edits

Hello. I'm in agreement with the recent revert you made on 1992. Not sure if you already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Best regards, Belovedfreak 09:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Burno film title

http://www.brunomovie.tv/brunonews.html Top of page:

On Friday, THR brought word of a multistudio bidding war for the worldwide distribution rights to Sacha Baron Cohen's next movie, Bruno: Delicious Journeys Through America for the Purpose of Making Heterosexual Males Visibly Uncomfortable in the Presence of a Gay Foreigner in a Mesh T-Shirt, an auction obviously timed to maximize the comedian's take before Borat's upcoming, scaled-back release could threaten a market correction for his guerrilla filmmaking services. Today, they follow up with news that Universal won the Bruno sweepstakes with their $42.5 million offer, which they note covers the film's budget and features a "significant backend component," subtle contractual language that we suspect Cohen himself required be included in any report of his agency's eight-figure buggering of the studio. With this deal completed and his considerable Borat promotional responsibilities dispensed of, Cohen can soon begin the crucial work of devising ways to goad Bruno's homeland into a prolonged public war intended to dispel the notion that Austria's population is wholly comprised of neon-mohawked, fashion television hosts preoccupied with sexually menacing American college football teams69.183.53.110 19:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)JakeDHS07

Sorry my mistake some how I got the idea that you said it was in the middle of the page not the top. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Mat Rempit

Daniel, I appreciate your reversion and edit, however the proposal entered, while POV is the best solution to the Mat Rempit issue in Malaysia! How many youths will want to be Mat Rempit after being brought to see entire families die for the delinquency of one member? Death, or the fear of a cruel death is by far the best maintainer of public order! 62.30.230.62 21:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Right...--Daniel J. Leivick 17:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Rowan Trollope

Do not go around labeling well established pages as needed to cite notability just because the person the page is about (and the author) disagreed with you on another page. I have added NUMEROUS other references to Rowan Trollope's page and removed your change. Shaunco 23:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Easy there, Rowan Trollope's comments in the AfD had nothing to do with the tags, the page was unreferenced and full of unsourced biographical info, the tags were warrented, do not accuse me of slander. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Lockport (NY)

Herbert C. Harrison was born in Lockport, NY, and invented the Radiator. Erasing his mention from the notable natives section simply because "a person like him" in your opinion, "should be a 'blue link' at least", was incorrect. If you wish to make his link "a blue link", please feel free to create an entry devoted to him.

I have corrected your error. You're welcome.

(RealBigFlipsbrain 23:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

1993

I replied on my talk page --barneca (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Summers complained about our personal attacks on him over at AN/I

It's been resolved, but in case you missed it...--SarekOfVulcan 20:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, it is probably better I didn't know about it until it was over, I might have said somethings I would come to regret. Thanks for letting me know in any case. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. Given that most admins have basic reading comprehension skills, I wasn't particularly worried.--SarekOfVulcan 20:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your reversion on The Promise (Brianna Rieffel song)

hi, I am the one who originally added the afd text at the top of this page, when I added these albums to the AFD. An other editor removed them, arguing the discussion had started already. Therefore, the AFD notice isn't relevant. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

re Barbaro family

Sorry I just reverted past your tagging of this article without seeing your edit. However, there's no specific citations for any of the statements in the article (even in the version I reverted to), and without them anything in the article is subject to removal per WP:CITE: "Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor." The stuff about Vitus Barbaro, with his Transylvanian and Chinese titles of nobility, is particularly suspect; I'm not going to accept its presence without verifiable citations. Deor 03:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am behind you 100%. The whole article is suspect to me, as it is at the very least poorly written and at worst full of hoax type info (stubbing it might not be a bad idea). I thought the hoax tag would be a good idea as I have a feeling we might be dealing with a organized effort to introduce false information onto Wikipedia. The best evidence for which is this [2] posted by a anon involved in both the Barbaro page and the list of collegiate secret society page on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent. This webpage smells like a hoax to me and makes the actions of these anon highly suspicious. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hari Singh (soldier)

Some editors and myself have taken upon ourselves to fix up the article and I would like for you to look it over again and if it passes to you, if you would resind your nomination of the article for AfD. Callelinea 03:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I was planning on doing that, looks like he is notable enough. I have been going through old notability cases and either pulling the tags down or nominating for deletion. Thanks for fixing this one up, I liked all those pictures and would have been a little sad to see it go. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This was a good read.

Keep up the work, Daniel J. Leivick. A promotion in the Order may be forthcoming. May you follow in the footsteps of those who come after you. -- ORV

re: Creation Museum

I just wanted to clarify my edit that you reverted on the Creation Museum page. I was not pushing POV in fact I was partially reverting someone else's attempted to push it and attempting to create a sort of compromise version. Check the history to be clear. No big deal I just didn't want you to think that I was trying to slant the Creation Museum page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel J. Leivick (talk • contribs) 03:12, 17 July 2007

Sorry, I did see the history, it was a bit of knee-jerk on my part I have to admit. When you spend a lot of time editing creationist articles, that 99% number is one that always gets attacked. ornis 03:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries at all. I completely understand what you mean. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Waterfall Edits

I have reverted some of your edits on North Carolina Waterfalls. If you would like to discuss the inclusion or noninclusion of visiting information on waterfall pages, please join the Waterfalls WikiProject so that a group of us may discuss the issue and come to a conclusion. 5minutes 14:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I will take it up under the topic heading you started on the Waterfalls project space. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

It might seem like I am some monster when I said 'you are pathetic'. I meant 'this whole thing is pathetic' meaning that this argument is not useful and can be solved properly.

Wjs13 11:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Apology for the personal attack accepted, but I am not sure I understand you. Are you saying that this issue can be solved properly? If so than why have you refused to discuss it in any more than a cursory dismissive fashion, myself and other editors have been trying to solve the issue, your help would be welcome. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The cover

Its ok, I was looking for a better photo. (I didnt like the excessive eye makeup, but then its not a beauty contest!). --Skatewalk 07:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

WritersUA deletion review

I posted the following question on the review page: Question, The process document does not provide us with any guidelines as to where/what/when you needed to have references. In the challenge I said I could provide numerous references. Do you want them now? How many? What types? Where should I deliver them to the reviewers? We can provide references from academics, corporations, professional societies, notable experts, etc. Google has 20,000 references to our organization from sources all around the world. Most of the hits are referencing original articles that have contributed to the knowledge-base of the user assistance community. Over 800 hits reference survey results alone. Most of the hits referencing the annual conference are not advertising - rather they are describing industry news and insights that came out of the technical sessions. Approximately 40-50 industry experts speak at the event each year. With respect to the authority of referencing entities, I would assume the size of the pond should not be as important as an organization's relative size in that pond. User assistance is a relatively small part of the overall IT industry. It does not regularly receive notices on large, mainstream web sites. But it is vital and vibrant. The numerous organizations and individuals that reference WritersUA may not be well known in the mainstream but they are certainly well=respected within our community. Joe Welinske 15:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Brigitte

Can you remove the nonsense edits and remove the NPOV? I am she is stil alive how can the article be a NPOV! I removed a quote of Wafa Sultan someone keeps insterting in the article.--Skatewalk 22:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

photo reply

I just try to concentrate more on keeping the subject matter --the car-- level, as opposed to focusing on the horizon line. I don't have to, I suppose, but in my opinion an angled car looks worse than an angled background. IFCAR 00:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the car is always going to be angled unless it is a straight profile or head on shot, the brain corrects this by using the horizon line and seeing depth. When the horizon line is skewed it looks odd and disconcerting. I know appeals to personal authority are lame, but I used to work in the photo lab at my school and my dad is professional photographer so I do have a pretty good idea not only of what I like, but of what is accepted as good aesthetics in taking pictures. Just as an example you will never see a skewed horizon line in a car magazine unless they are going for some kind of "artistic" impact which I don't think we should be trying to do here. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't see this part of the discussion. FYI, replied here. Roguegeek (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

ya, I'm still kinda getting used to wikipedia but doing better, thanks for the help Laxplayer630

No problem happy to help. I moved your comment from my userpage to my talk page. Comments and questions are supposed to go here. The userpage is generally only to be edited by the user themselves. I don't want to dump a whole bunch of rules and regs on you but you should also sign you post on talk pages (not mainspace pages) by adding four ~(tildas) to the end of every post. Wikipedia will autmatically add your name and a time stamp to the end of the post. I will post this message both on your talk and on mine, but generally it is best to keep it all the page it originated from. In this case it would be your userpage I have added your talk page to my watchlist so if you respond there I will see it. Good luck and have fun editing Wikipedia, again I'm happy to help with anything. --Daniel J. Leivick 05:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Do you have Adobe Photoshop or another image editing program that can rotate images? If so, I invite you to name any image that would be the best for use in the article except for its angle, and I can get you the original uncropped version. (I have PS, but for the life of me I can't see what the concerns are with some of the photos that have been criticized, and haven't had any success when I tried to fix the ones I did notice.) Let me know if you can and would be willing to help. I'm also extending this offer to User:Roguegeek, as he also brought this up on my Talk page. IFCAR 10:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I do have PS, this sounds like a great idea! I will get you a list of the picture that I think should be fixed as soon as I get a chance. --

Okay, I didn't quite think it through enough. When I tried to upload at ImageShack and Photobucket, the resolution was reduced. If you could send me your email (just message me at comments.ifcar@gmail.com so I'll have it) I'll reply with the images at their full resolutions. Or, I can just give you lower-resolution PhotoBucket links. Let me know, and sorry for the change. IFCAR 01:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Had you not seen this, or does this not work for you? Let me know. IFCAR 22:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Secret Societies

Response on my talk page. Justinm1978 03:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

3rr: User:Nomadent

Hi, Daniel. There appeared to be some problems with the formatting of your 3rr report, so rather than edit them I just cut and pasted the one I was working on. If that's not OK by you, I'll gladly just revert to your version. Let me know what you'd like me to do. Cheers. --Rrburke^(talk) 17:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. --17:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Daniel. I note the editor now appears to have a sockpuppet, User:Mowood28. However, it appears to me that, if the claims of press coverage are accurate, the subject may be notable. The problem may be WP:SOAP and WP:COI, and the articles certainly have a spammy tone, but they may not be speediable if the subject is actually notable. Just my opinion. --Rrburke^(talk) 19:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw the sockpuppet. I don't know about the press coverage though, most of it sounds like brief appearances that are not likely to provide material from which to write an article (WP:N) or special interest pieces in the local paper which I think would cause it to violate WP:NOT a directory. Keep me posted though. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved one and redirected the other. --Rrburke^(talk) 19:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision of Ethics of eating meat

The edit by 207.118.234.100 (on 15:11, 6 September 2007) you reverted was a perfectly benign edit. Why did you revert this? Calibas 00:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It looked to me like someone had just added a name to the end of the article. Looked like vandalism, was he related to the link that was right above it? --Daniel J. Leivick 02:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The name was the author of the article. Calibas 00:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Slang Uses

Do not revise Douche again. A group of douchebags is a puddle. A new collective noun has entered the pop slang lexicon, and it deserves its place, particularly if included in "Slang uses". It is too new to have lots of established sources. It is spawned from the lyrics of a hip-hop song, much as Shakespeare introduced words to the English language. So, let it live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.1.68.222 (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CITE find a good sources and put it back in and don't tell me what pages to edit. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In WP:CITE it reads "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." The introduction of a new word into the lexicon is not challengeable in that, language is a choice. If one doesn't agree with the choice of words, they don't have to use it. It's not like I am so concerned with this edit, it's just that I feel you are being to quick to delete my edits, as if they were vandalism! And frankly, your insolence drives me to butt heads with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JSpace (talk • contribs) 17:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that this is an accepted use of the word "puddle" if you can provide it please add it back in. If not drop it. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mitsubishi GTO

Fingers crossed. --DeLarge 18:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

IT'S NOT PUFFERY!

Why are you removing the youtube "puffery"? The Uplander DOES have a 5-star crash test rating! What's wrong with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.95.17.238 (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Youtube is not a WP:RS. Also the section you have been adding uses POV (puffery) wording. If you can find a good source and phrase the section appropriatly, please add it back. --Daniel J. Leivick 22:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)