User talk:Daniel J. Leivick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents

[edit] Soviet Intervention in Afghanistan edits

I was the person who made the edits to this article yesterday without signing in. I wasn't aware of the IP/sign-in rule. Aside from that, maybe it's time for Wikipedia admins to establish guidelines for appropriate, valid footnoting of material included in articles. I think the issue in this article is the credibility of the references cited. Please see my replies to Scythian1 on the discussion page. Thanks.

Kenmore (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Leivick:
This latest revision to the Afghanistan-Soviet article (Raoulduke's) should interest you. Please note that Urban's study is one of the best known and most respected analyses of the war to date.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan&action=history
Kenmore (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not really interested in settling this dispute, as it is out of my area of expertise. All I did was protect the page to stop edit warring and asked you to discuss your edits rather than revert. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but I think you are barking up the wrong tree. If you look at the article's discussion page, you will see clearly that it is a certain group of people who are unwilling to seriously discuss referencing issues. They have turned the article in a farce, really. Wikipedia social sciences articles are not going to get far unless admins start to enforce standards of footnoting.
Kenmore (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muscle cars imgs

Hi Daniel, thank you for trying to improve the image/text relevance. However, I think the edit is confusing, and loses more cohesion than it gains. E.g. the position of the Hudson image now looks as though it's intended as an illustration of the Oldsmobile named in the heading, whereas its previous position was deliberately chosen to avoid that confusion; the Ford Thunderbolt image is now far adrift of the "turn-key drag racers" section to which, as is evident from its caption, it closely relates, etc. And visually the way the new edit scatters the images seems to be a retrograde step from the clarity of the previous stack. (Also the Rambler now overlaps the text in my browser.) I'm going to revert the edit and make a different change that I hope will help to address your concern. Thanks, Writegeist (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Filippo Berio

Hi there - I see you recently deleted an article with which I was involved. I'd just like to discuss this with you a little. I understand your reason of it being "Blatent Advertising" - but I created the article in good faith. After coming looking for more information, I created it as an encyclopaedic stub, hoping others would add more information and if you were to check the previous revisions you would see that was the case. Just a couple of days earlier another user tagged it for requiring additions such as more categorisation, tasks I completed in order to improve the article.

It's true that another contributor did drastically reword the article, and I fully agree it read like an advert. I wasnt in favour of the edit, but wasn't sure about reverting it, so ignored it - perhaps this was a mistake.

My only question is that although in it's last form it appeared like advertising, given that was a result of an edit, and it could easily be restored to a more encyclopaedic form, is it really necessary to delete it altogether, rather than just reverting the offending edit? It's not intrinsically a bad article, and could be a perfectly useful contribution. Thanks a lot for your thoughts. VWOzone (Talk) 18:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I missed the fact that it was turned into advertising from a decent version. I will restore the page. I do however think there might be some notability concerns. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:I am a jedi

An indef. block is rather harsh here. Just so you know, he has requested unblock, and assuming he agrees not to edit war anymore, I plan to unblock him. I saw the edit summary of his first edit back, and I agree, not acceptable, nor indicative that he's going to contribute constructively, however, as I said, indef. is far to extreme at this point in time. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if he agrees to stop edit warring, I see no reason not to unblock him. In retrospect the block should have been more like a week, but unless he agrees to change his behavior, I see no reason to shorten the block. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

THANK YOUChiboyers (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mang Gorn Luang

Bah. Ya beat me to it! :) --jonny-mt 07:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Secret societies page

So what do you make of the removal of all that info by User:JoshLevine? I smell something fishy, but can't place exactly what. The edit history shows very little contributions. I won't revert again until tomorrow sometime, as I have a tendency to violate 3RR without paying attention. Justinm1978 (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I counted it up, and he's hit the 3RR threshold. I made my second revert, but won't touch again for at least 24 hours. If he reverts this time, I'll take it to WP:3RR because that'll definitely be over the line. Justinm1978 (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems fishy to me too. One of the socks from the Mctrain case did exactly the same thinge, along the lines of "if you wont play by my rules I am taking my ball and going home." This new user has been warned and if they revert again they will be blocked. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked JoshLevine as an obvious sock of the Mctrain group as he edited Barbaro family, reinserting the deleted Mctrain content and again trying to claim that it is 100% accurate. In all honestly can't tell what is going on. It is clear however that there are serious sock puppet issues. Let me know if anything comes up. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please block user Colliver55 for undo edits

Daniel Leivick, please review this Great Power history link, user Colliver55 is violating Wikipedia's policy, I created a talk discussions page to consenus and user "Colliver55" won't answer, he is just undoing edits for no reason. Please block this use please. I would like to try to resolve the issue on a consenus but people can not act like this if they do not want to communicate but undo with nothing to say. [1]

Please see the discussion at the bottom where it says "Russia is a Superpower not a great power"[2]. I have discussions topic and user Colliver55 will not discuss anything, please block him until he agrees to talk about the issue. Thanks --24.205.234.250 (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see this is a content dispute. You have both violated WP:3RR many times over, being in the right doesn't give you a pass on the 3RR. I have protected the page from editing for three days. Hopefully you can use this time to discuss the edits in question on the talk page. In the future you can report users who violate 3RR at WP:AN/3RR although in this case it is likely that both of you would be blocked if this was reported. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Leivick, I would firstly like to say I have fully discussed and given my reasons for reverting the edits made by Versace 11 and the ISP address given above. The use of these sources has been distorted to give basis for conclusions the editors themselves and no-one else has made. Using sensationalist articles as a reference source is hardly reliable and you could probably find an article of dubious quality supporting any assertion you wish to make. I believe the statement 'Russia is also referred to a superpower' is little more than propaganda and makes a mokery of Wikipedia. The discussion page on Great Power article has already had an argument about Russia as a superpower, and the consensus was that Russia was a Great Power, not a Superpower. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As an admin I don't get any special say. Please continue discussion on the talk page. If you have reached an impass, take a look at WP:DR for further steps or ask me to help mediate the issue, although I might not be the best choice as my experience in that field is limited. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Terada

My bad, i forgot that asserting is enough, and that the assertion doesn't need evidence...Sorry. Shoombooly (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Like I said, feel free to put it through AfD as it doesn't seem to provide any proof of notability. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll wait and see if my account is still here tomorrow lol, then perhaps i will. Thanks Shoombooly (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] speedy deletion of Standee

hi there...you performed a speedy deletion of Standee

 02:36, 11 June 2008 Daniel J. Leivick (Talk | contribs) deleted "Standee" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising)

I don't have the page in front of me anymore (duh), but I'm pretty sure the version I last edited was not advertising at all, much less blatant. As I recall, it was a stub explaining that a theatrical movie standee is a cardboard cutout device used to promote movies (frequently seen in the lobbies of movie theatres). Was an error made here? Is my recollection completely off?

Thanks! jhawkinson (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well there term standee is apparently a trademark of one company that make the these cutouts. I imagine that the actual objects probably have some other name. If I am wrong than we should have an article. Let me know. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I see now the line you're referring to in the google cache. I don't think it invalidates the remaining part of the article. Specifically, WP:SD's G11 says "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." In any case, though, I'm not aware of another name for these items, so yes, could please restore the article? The word "standee" seems to be used universally for them, and I haven't investigated the trademark claim. Thank you. jhawkinson (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like another name for them is "cardboard stand up." Although it appears that Standee is a more commonly used name. I will restore the article and you can decide where to go from there. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Commando Krav Maga Page

Dear Mr. Leivick,

Please advise on how I would get the Commando Krav Maga page re-instated. The discipline is fairly new (in name) and referenced sources primarily come from martial arts publications such as Black Belt, Inside Kung-Fu, BUDO and Martial Arts Illustrated. All comments considered to be unnecessary advertising or biased will be removed so that statements will stay as factual information. I have noticed that the Krav Maga page contains information that is only backed up by references to their websites. If that is the case, can I also do the same? I appreciate your time.

Combatsurvival (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to recreate the page. Speedy deleted pages can be recreated without discussion, as long as there is a good faith effort to make it into an encyclopedia article. Good luck and let me know if you need any help. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel! Will do! Combatsurvival (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Teacher Learning Academy

Hi Daniel, you have deleted a page that I was starting to work on "Teacher Learning Academy". Despite being rather brief I did spend a lot of time producing it. It wasn't close to completion and I think that is a worthy article. Is it possible to retrieve the work that I had done? --SteveMargetts (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I now have this and am working on it. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 12:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)