User talk:Daniel J. Leivick

This user may have left Wikipedia. Daniel J. Leivick has not edited Wikipedia since 2017. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archive 1 / Archive 2 / Archive 3 / Archive 4 / Archive 5 / Archive 6 / Archive 7

Welcome to my talk page. Please feel free to leave a message. In general if you start a conversion here I will respond to it here rather than on your own talk page. ---

Why did you remove my mention of the issue of Cayman engine failures? That is common knowledge as is most of the article. The mention of forums was not as a source but as a place to find additional information. I ask that you visit those many forums if you would like to learn more or Google "Cayman engine failure". There is no reason for Wikipedia, per se, to hide this information. I doubt that Porsche will provide numbers of failures to substantiate. Thanks.

Please see WP:V information on Wikipedia must be verifiable through reliable resources. Forums are not reliable sources. If this is a major issue I'm sure it is covered in the automotive press. --Daniel 22:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Again, the mention of Porsche owner forums was not intended as a citation but as a source for more information, like a "hyperlink or URL". The fact that there are so many failures is common knowledge and the fact that it is common knowledge is evidenced by its frequent appearance in forums. The forums are not the "reliable source". The failures are common knowledge just like "The Porsche Cayman is a mid-engined, rear wheel drive 2-seat sports car" is common knowledge. Rhetorically, where's the citation for that description? I'm confused by your statement regarding the automotive press. Are you implying that interested Porsche buyers can find better information in the automotive press or that if I could cite the automotive press then the information regarding the failure would be valid? I truly hope being covered in the automotive press isn't a requirement for Wikipedia to present valuable information to the public. Porsche and other manufacturers spend huge amounts of money to influence the automotive press and also have well paid employees that work forums to help present their case regarding defects there. I hope you'll reconsider the elimination of this fact about the cars from the article and I very sincerely hope that being covered in the automotive press isn't the determining factor regarding when an issue becomes a "major" issue that warrants coverage in an encyclopedia. This type of issue is very precisely why there needs to be a Wikipedia and why this issue should be allowed mention. Engine failure in a high performance car is a serious safety concern. Thanks.

Being covered in some type of reliable source is a requirement. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, it covers previously published material. Forums would be considered a primary source and are almost never suitable as citations or as evidence that something is "common knowledge." To understand what type of source is required, read WP:RS. If this is a major issue, worthy of serious mention has very likely been published somewhere. --Daniel(talk) 04:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

you deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SMErobot&action=edit&redlink=1 a while ago, but this article should be listet here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_robotics_projects and the project got a) good feedback from public / articles, research community and politicians b) a follow-up project so that I do not understand why you deleted the page (ThiloZimmermann (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Not for nothing, but in reviewing your edits on that page, I noticed that it muddied the information. The reversion and revisions seemed to clarify. 69.113.168.79 (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd settle to rest your unsavory doubts about Oxbridge and London. If statistics is any measure of greatness, then none comes close to Oxford, Cambridge and London. I'd say all the 4.0 gpa americans from america's best universities seeking another degree at Oxford, Cambridge and/or London pretty much proves my point and destroys yours. Would you like to provide better all-around and all-time verifiable statistical evidence yourself to counter that statement of fact? If you can't, then you have nothing to contribute.

Thetruthnow2012 (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You have removed the MAIN aspect of what the mdvanii artwork is albout ....19 gay issues as a precedent in a doll/artwork

2) use of real haute couture....

this phrase is essential I think to express in brief the main aspect of what the work is about and known for

in Paris, France. She was made in a matt Caron make-up toned hard resin and 25 centimeters tall. She was the first anatomically-correct fashion doll with an adult (non-parody) storyline including homosexual, lesbian and bisexual personality traits. She was presented with a wardrobe of high fashion clothes made in France with identical construction as human-scale clothes

Shall I put it elsewhere?

Thank yu for the help and understanding. 83.76.202.171 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please sign in. There are too many single purpose accounts editing this article for me to keep this all straight. --Leivick (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good day sir,

We have vastly improved the article I believe and others have contributed alot which is good but I feel this below is totally absurd.....

someone left this: This article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (January 2011)

It's totally inappropriate and quite absurd...I get the impression, people are being anti-gay and leave these things just to be annoying....since I don't dare move it myself....can you help get it off? Its really totally gratuitous. There are 63 major articles on this piece and we intend to add more citations,(it does take a while to find, read and review and add the citations) .....what more do people want? Can you please help!? thank you, Blanderàmort (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ps: It seems this user joined wiki just to add this comment....totally not appropriate warning in my opinion. I am not clear what a gnome actually does and it's hard to follow the explanation for me....is this user a legitimate wiki user or a vandal? Thank you for your help and input Blanderàmort (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the help with cleanup of the Guy Bavli BLP article. I had posted to Wikipedia:COIN#Guy_Bavli about removing the coi tag (as well as a previous COIN post in november 2010). The article is also listed in my COI declaration. It may be that the article requires more cleanup. If you have any WP:NPOV cleanup issues that any conflicted editor is disagreeing with, then I'd agree a coi tag would be appropriate. However, I havn't heard of any disagreements, so would suggest that the tag be removed. Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     17:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There is a clear conflict of interest and the article is a mess. The stuff I removed was indicative of the sort of content that gets created in this type of situation. It cherry picked facts to give an impression of success. The article will need to be gone over carefully before I think the conflict of interest tag should be removed. --Leivick (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree the article should be reviewed for cleanup.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     18:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no way of changing the lead image in Lincoln Continental. It should be flexible within reason.

As for editors calling me names, I'm not responsible for that.

Sadowski (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely appreciate the offer for mediation, however I'll have to decline. As I've tried in vain to make clear to him, I do not yet have any opinion on the dispute over the lead image, which seems to be the beef he has with the article. I have no content-based conflict with him (yet, all that stuff he put on the GM fullsize pages is going to come to a head eventually). I simply warned him that disruption to prove a point will not be tolerated, and he responded with baseless accusations. I know I should have tempered my response and not fed the troll, however, being accused of "advertising" and "promotion" is one of those few things I will not accept from any editor, let alone one with that big of a chip on his shoulder.

Considering that he appears to be content to dig himself further into a hole (or leave altogether) I'll end my participation in this, and remove that article from my watchlist if it comes down to that. I have a feeling he'll find someone else to do the same to though. --Sable232 (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is disappointing, your input would certainly be appropriated, but I can respect your decision to disengage. I still think an apology would be a good idea. He is a new user who doesn't understand how we do business here and is jumping in head first, which is leading to problems, I think if he is engaged civilly and calmly he may be able to become a good contributor (If he can't then he wont last long). --Leivick (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is disappointing, your input would certainly be appropriated, but I can respect your decision to disengage. I still think an apology would be a good idea. If you apologized first he might be convinced to be civil (I know this might be asking too much). He is a new user who doesn't understand how we do business here and is jumping in head first, which is leading to problems, I think if he is engaged civilly and calmly he may be able to become a good contributor (If he can't then he wont last long). His accusation of advertising are utterly baseless and to me at least baseless insults don't hurt much. --Leivick (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and you're right. I guess I should qualify my prior statement; I'd be more than happy to offer input on which photo to use if there's a civil and reasonable discussion about it. I do see his point, and in fact I agree that in the grand scheme of things the one that's there isn't the best representation (although not the worst), albeit for a different reason. I'll think this over some more. --Sable232 (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I can assure you that the conversation will be civil, if it isn't the uncivil editors will be blocked. I think you guys got off on the wrong foot, but I don't see a reason why you can't work together in the future. Think about it and come back when you are ready. --Leivick (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a slave to history.

I don't think I will be a trouble to the Wikipedia entries on large automobiles. I'm a force for good.

I have already corrected the entries with regard to Cadillac (see what I've already done) and what I've already done is in general agreement with Krause's Standard Catalog of American Cars series.

Somebody had to start correcting the massive amount of missinformation in Cadillac. And I'm happy to do it for free.

I have no beefs with anybody who loves large old American cars and those who are similarly minded will love me (be it Cadillac, Lincoln, Imperial or whatever).

Mark A. Sadowski

Sadowski (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution are appreciated. Unfortunately you will have to not have "beefs" with people who don't like large old American cars. These pages are not intended to promote their subjects. Again, you should keep the discussion on the page where it starts rather than starting a new section on my talk page for every message. --Leivick (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if I attempt to personally change the lead image again I will be treated how? What will prevent me from finding surrogates?

The image will be changed. It is only a matter of time. I can only guess at your motives for putting up so much fierce resistance. And the more resistance you put up the more force in reaction you may find. (That's not a promise, it's merely a guess.)

Sadowski (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What "fierce resistance" are you talking about, I'm not involved in this debate in any way (in any case read WP:AGF). My only motive at this point is to make sure the discussion is civil. I would strongly recommend you not change the image until you achieve consensus for the change on the talk page (read WP:CONSENSUS). --Leivick (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will not touch the image until this is resolved. But others might.

Sadowski (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel. By mistake I created Cadillac Urban Luxury Concept car, when the right name should have been Cadillac Urban Luxury Concept. I couldn't do the move by myself because I had already created the latter as a redirect before I realized my mistake. Would you be so kind to do this move as an admin. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Looks like an interesting and forward thinking concept especially for a division like Cadillac. --Daniel 19:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt support.--Mariordo (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel. In the end I did not have as much time available as I had expected to work on the list of issues for green cars, but I will work on it soon. Nevertheless, I would like your feedback on the changes I did in the lead of the article electric car, see the diff here. You can leave your comments in the talk there, I opened a section for that purpose as this article has a lot of traffic, its content is not very stable and has some regular editors at both sides of the spectrum, so edits related to the actual benefits of electric cars are often very contentious. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Dancer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Adaptron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Taxa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.100.5.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is suspected of being a sock of a past banned ref-desk user who had a similar approach and belligerence. The question is currently being discussed toward the end of the ref desk talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel. I will appreciate if you can take a look at the Miles per gallon gasoline equivalent article. As a result of one new user pushing his POV and OR, I decided to ramp up the article, and not only provide RS but also to provide context. The well-to-wheels section is still subject of edit waring with the new user, so your assessment in the Talk will be greatly appreciated. I will follow your recommendations. Thanks,--Mariordo (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mariodo, thanks for asking for my opinion. I would love to help, but I'm just too busy with work and school to give this my full attention right now. I will be on vacation next week, but I'm unlikely to have time then either. When I get back things will probably be less jammed and I will try to take a look and give me input. --Daniel 00:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to delete my edit on ART BELL. Do you know him or his family as I do? Did you verify that he had not passed? Did you talk to his wife? Were you by his bed side as I was when he died? And when I left the room you came in and saw that he had come back to life, therefore you keep deleting that he has Died. I think not. I will be taking this to head of Wikipedia. How dare you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.65.239 (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry this makes you angry, but biographical content on Wikipedia must be verified through reliable sources (see WP:V and WP:BLP). Personal testimony from an anonymous person on the internet is not sufficient. If Art Bell has died I'm sure many news sources will report it at which point it will be added to his biography. --Daniel 00:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have restored it, I have asked Rod to remove it.[1] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy removed it himself - I have seen Jimmy removes all such attack type comments, I would also have removed it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is Jimbo's talk page, I think we should let him remove what he wants instead of deciding for him. It isn't a gross personal attack (It isn't a friendly post either) so I didn't see any reason for anyone else to remove it. --Daniel 15:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about Jimmys talkpage is that it gets trolled a lot, and that it has a lot of page views and as per my understanding of his position, he appreciates that such trolling is not left there or encouraged by answering and so on the comments and attack type additions. Although it is a user talkpage there are in the case of his talkpage additional considerations compared to mine or yours. As an active watcher of his talkpage I assumed from experience that the comment was something that fell within the lines of removal. Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Moderator,

Kindly remove the pictures of Falsely claimed Pictures of Prophet Muhammad. It has come to my notice today and as a contributor to WikiPedia , I would like to request for the immediate removal of the pictures. The source from where the pictures are taken is not a valuable source as I have come to conclusion. Kindly take action on this. It will really offend people following Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwasif (talk • contribs) 21:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. If you still wish to raise the issue you can do so at Talk:Muhammad/images. --Daniel 21:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KellyHeyn and 143.85.199.241 (who seem to be the same person) have been adding a large amount of copy/pasted text from other sites to the articles Program Executive Office Command Control Communications Tactical and Project Manager Battle Command. You noticed the COI and POV issues on Program Executive Office Command Control Communications Tactical, putting the appropriate templates on the page. Because of that, and because you have a mop -- and thus have a better understanding of policy and whatnot than I -- I'm asking you for help with this.

I'm not entirely sure what to do about this. If you note from KellyHeyn's talk and the past history of one of the pages, I previously reverted the edits, warned the user, and discussed it with him, and he seemed to stop. But now he's back and doing it again, and I'm not sure if I should revert the edits, or report this to a noticeboard, or what? A reading of the policy on copyright violations would suggest that I add a copypaste template to the pages... and I've done that, but it doesn't seem like enough somehow. But at the same time, something in the back of my head tells me I may now be a little too invested to keep an objective outlook on this, and that's usually a cue to stop and ask for assistance, which is what I'm doing. So help me, if necessary, please -- and please tell me what I should do next time I come across something like this, so I don't have to bother someone else next time I'm confused. Thanks! Gscshoyru (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These huge copy-pastes from government websites are not going to work and I don't think you have crossed any lines at all. You are doing fine. I reverted their edits at Program Executive Office Command Control Communications Tactical. On the other hand, I'm not sure if they are copyright violations, as usually things created by people in the military in the line of duty are public domain. I think your next stop should be Wikipedia:Copyright problems and possibly Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. It is pretty clear we are dealing with someone who has been told to improve the Wikipedia pages as part of their job, so I would also leave them a note explaining these issues. I'm very busy right now with school (one month left in the semester) so I wont have too much time to contribute, I will be around though and can make sure things don't get out of hand. --Daniel 15:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see you are aware of most of what I said here and have already posted a warning on their talk page. If they continue to revert I think a block might be needed. --Daniel 15:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I wasn't worried that I had already crossed the line -- but I was worried that I was about to. So thanks for your direction on what to do.

Just so you know -- trying to find a version of the other article the user edited, Project Manager Battle Command, where it wasn't full of POV'd content led me to the user PEOC3T. KellyHeyn is apparently not the first person this organization has instructed to improve their pages on Wikipedia, as this edit shows, and every page this other user has added is currently full of copy/pasted and very POV'd text. So I'm going to bring this to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, since that seems to be the best place to deal with this sort of thing. Just thought you'd like to know.

Thanks again for your help! Gscshoyru (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good day. Can look at this report please [2] ? Dighapet (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the accounts have been blocked. Let me know if anything else comes up. --Daniel 23:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Mick Hazen's page. I restored it to a correct version, adding only that he won the 2011 Young Artist Award. Verified from the Young Artist Awards site. The versions that were up before my edit contained untrue statements are were malicious in nature. Can you remove those? Thank you. 24.193.44.253 (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I agree with "Career" as a topic, since initial paragraph includes much of Mr. Prendergast's work.

Also think that Big Brothers is important, as as a big brother, Mr. Prendergast met his "little brother" with whom he co-authored his most recent book, Unlikely Brothers and represents his character.

Re working in Africa for over 25 years, supports legitimacy.

Think, too, that best-selling author is important, as it is part of his life.

Let me know what you think.

Do you feel comfortable removing the tag now?

Thanks! Jespah 23:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable removing the tag, the article still has a long way to go. Please bring any concerns you have with my edits to the article talk page so others can be involved in the discussion. --Daniel 02:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know you've taken a special interest with this editor in the past. I'm hoping you can make a postive difference again. 842U (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at this [3], with a view to taking some kind of action (or inviting it from another admin) to prevent the continuation of this behaviour. Thank you. Writegeist (talk)

I've been watching this case, but haven't commented. I'm sorry but I don't really want to be involved. I've tried to tell Bob that his behavior needs to change, but I don't think I really got through. I'm not really an uninvolved party here so I wont be able to use my admin tools. --Daniel 16:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another admin has seen fit to block him for abusive behaviour. He continues to exhibit the very same ownership (and other) issues that were raised at ANI as far back as 2009 and things are probably getting worse. Do you think it is time to take his behaviour to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (once his current block expires) and possibly propose a topic ban, on all Chevrolet cars? --Biker Biker (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the community is running out of patients. I'm not sure he will get the point though. If his behavior doesn't change after this block, the next one should be indefinite. I think a topic ban on this topic would be a defacto indefinite block (it is all he really edits), so I don't really see the point. --Daniel 23:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll wait to see what happens next then. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to begin to assimilate the big picture here, how long this has gone on and what can be done about it. Otherwise, BarnstarBob can simply outlast editors one by one and own whatever(Chevrolet) articles he's inclined toward. 842U (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Leivick,

I posted a new article at my sub-page (/Arkeia Software). Would it be possible for you to please look it over and let me know if it's ready for the main page or if there are any changes you think I should make to it? (I prefer to have an administrator look it over before I officially post it in the main space.) Thank you!Michael Leeman (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, as an admin, can you check if this is vandalism? First edits in Wiki & lots of barnstars? -- Mariordo (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel - don't understand your pov re non-neutrality. how what is presently on sudan now wiki page is less neutral than what was there. all posted was factual. the president, biden and clinton all made campaign promises which were not kept, thus the need for sudan not.

a speedy deletion tag has been posted on article. can you please help me with this? thank you.

--Jespah (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't post big copies of deletion notices on my talk page, it is really annoying. Claims like the ones I removed need to be sourced to a third party. You are making an claim that these politicians failed to keep promises that is an opinion, not a fact. In order for the article not to be deleted, you will need to show that it meets WP:N. --Daniel 17:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! just returned to fix that. --Jespah (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, thank you. yes, trying to upload a video. don't have it down yet. will work on it soon. --Jespah (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, do you know how to convert youtube video to one which will work for wikipedia? thanks. --Jespah (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are various media converters out there, just search google. Make sure you don't upload copyrighted material, if it is on Youtube then the uploader there holds the copyright. --Daniel 00:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. i have permission. --Jespah (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I posted my full explanation on the Talk page. I undid your reversion. I address several problems with the article as it was and explain more fully my edits.--Otheus (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You really need consensus for this. The article you linked to is entirely uncompelling Meyer's device is perpetual motion machine, the article you linked to involved the use of solar cells as an energy source. --Daniel 00:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i just looked at history after saving. if i reversed whatever edits you made was unintentional. unaware you had made any until viewed history. --Jespah (talk) 06:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really happy with placement of photos. Can't they be elsewhere? --Jespah (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look now, I just edited it. In the future please use the article talk page rather than my talk page. I can see when you edit there as well. --Daniel 06:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Daniel, Thanks for the note about my last revision of the Reader's Digest page. I'm a consultant with Reader's Digest, the brand, and after reading the Reader's Digest Wikipedia entry, at least one media oulet has been confused on what and who Reader's Digest is. You're probably aware that Reader's Digest is not just the magazine and that's what I'm trying to communicate in the revision as well as correcting any inaccuracies and adding new information. Like most publishers today, Reader's Digest the brand and Reader's Digest the magazine are heading into digital territory - not only making their current product available to the digital community, but adding new products and services enabled by technology. I'd like to be able to create a revised entry that distinguishes the different pieces of Reader's Digest so that all who use Wikipedia will have a clearer idea of who and what the company is and what it does. Reader's Digest, the brand, has its name on a lot of products and is undergoing a transformation and they want to make sure this is clear to readers. The magazine is published 10 times per year, rather than monthly and this month's issue is available on iPad and expected to be on Blackberry Playbook in the future. I also suggest that the image of the Reader's Digest print magazine cover be updated monthly. I can share a jpeg with you for the current print issue. Please let me know how you suggest moving forward to post these clarifications. Thanks, Michael Penn Mpmedia1 (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, thanks for your message. I will be happy to help you resolve some of these issues, but first I think it would be beneficial for you to read up on some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Being a consultant for RD, you have a conflict of interest in this topic (See WP:COI). While this does not preclude you from editing, it is discouraged. There is a good FAQ on editing articles where you have a financial interest, it can be found at WP:BFAQ. It can be difficult to write about topics that one is close to and it was fairly obvious from your edits that you were working for RD. The thing to keep in mind is that for almost all of its history RD has been a magazine, that is what it is known for and that is what most of the article should be about. We need to work to make the article factual, but not laudatory or promotional regarding RD's new endeavors. What I would suggest would be a new section in the article regarding the branching out form print media and for that section to be mentioned in the lead. I don't think the entire opening needs to be rewritten. As for your suggestion about updating the image, that would be up to you, you would need to upload the images and clear the copyright. I don't think that a monthly updated picture is needed, but if you want to do the work it wouldn't hurt. I'm going to post a welcome template on your page which will link to other policies and guidelines. Feel free to ask here if you need any further help. --Daniel 23:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply Daniel. I'll review guidelines, etc. and figure out where to go from there. Michael Mpmedia1 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel - if it's not there already, and if it's not too much trouble, can you add the foregoing to your watchlist? I appreciate your attentiveness to related pages like Unlikely Brothers, and another set of eyes on this one might be helpful from time to time. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel. I would like your help as an admin regarding the Focus BEV article. As you might remember the merge proposal discussion was closed with keep the article. However, OSX, based on this general discussion proceeded today to merge Ford Focus BEV article, despite the result of the discussion and my warning to follow proper procedure if he wished to re-open the discussion. My request is for the article to be restored and please, explain the ground rules that everybody must follow to avoid another lengthly edit war.--Mariordo (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OSX also blanked and then redirected Ford Focus RS WRC, which was contested for not following procedure (not by me), and now became an edit war. My understanding is that the consensus to reorganize the Focus articles was just that, not a blank check to go around blanking, merging and moving articles. So again, I respectfully required your intervention to stop this non sense.--Mariordo (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you are trying to do here and I'm flattered that you would seek me out to intervene as an admin, but I really can't be a neutral party here. I have too much history with both of you. I'm on vacation and not editing much, but I will look at it and comment on it as editor if I get a chance. If there are real issues that require an admin, WP:ANI is the place. I really think that you and OSX could work together well as you are both some of the better editors here. --Daniel 15:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will go for ANI indeed.--Mariordo (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel. It is my understanding you like the Natchez, Mississippi. I did a lot of wana-be historian work in Natchez and feel the page on Wki needs lots of work, but over time. My first edit was to add the book of my Thesis advisor, Ron Davis. The man has studied the city for some 40 years and was not on the book list. The city is so rich in history and a better job can be done. any ideas on where to start? As you have mentioned your name mine relly is Shane Shane505 (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shane, I don't know how you got the idea that I have an interest in Natchez, I have only edited the page twice, once to remove red links in the notable people section and once to fix vandalism. I don't have any knowledge or special interest in this place. Your contributions would be welcome. If you want advice about how to proceed I recommend checking in with WP:MISSISSIPPI they might have some advice for you. If you need anything specific, feel free to ask me. For future reference, new messages go to at the end of the page. Good luck contributing and welcome to Wikipedia. --Daniel 18:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was a very funny edit summary, although Mark Twain would not have approved. What do you think about credited canine actors? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably don't belong either, "Lassie caliber or greater" is my rule of thumb. --Daniel 22:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I edited the Cláudio César Dias Baptista article, a bunch of IPs started vandalising articles that I started or had major participation in. Just letting you know in case it happens to you as well. And apparently I had political motivations to remove original research, I wonder what they'll say about you? XXX antiuser ^eh? 17:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sylver's "rep" reverted the PR-free version and had the page locked. Evidently, it's a new front in Sylver's battle to whitewash the page since 2007. I've requested an unblock here. --LongLiveReagan (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the newpage tag to the article. While many articles with this tag will end up deleted, it is refreshing to see someone be nice to a new editor. Unfortunately, it happens way, way, way to infrequently. Bgwhite (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't add that tag, someone else did, I just put a COI tag on the article (as the author appears to be related to the subject). I do of course think it is important to welcome new contributors and try and make their entrance into Wikipedia as smooth as possible. --Daniel 00:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the bold editing to Mary Cunningham Agee, although I wish you had noted the extensive list of issues laid out on the Talk page and joined in. Arguably, that is too much process for what should be a simple task, but with an editor who may have a strong view about the content, I was trying to bend over backwards and show how collaborative editing worked. (Ironically, I think the editor in question didn't know about the talk page; the editor contacted me a few minutes ago because there seemed to be no progress.)--SPhilbrickT 02:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I now see the list that you made. It looks like I've gone through and cleared out most of what you pointed to as problematic material. I also removed some big lists of magazine write ups and media appearances which really don't belong in an encyclopedia article. If the creator shows up I'll definitely engage in discussion on the talk page. --Daniel 02:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I confess I'm puzzled, the editor in question has contacted me twice, but has yet to post a single thing on the talk page. --SPhilbrickT 14:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, the reason I marked the statement about 1980s+ income inequality for POV is that it's presented out of context. There's no reason given as to why 1980 was a turning point - and that leads me to question the POV of the approach used. Obviously a common concern is that Reaganomics harmed the economy and resulted in greater income disparity. If that's the concern, then it needs to be explicitly mentioned in the article! Leaving the readers with decontextualized statistics doesn't explain anything, and it only leaves the door open to bias.

My problem is not with the reliability of the source, which most likely presents accurate information based on thorough research. What's missing are the other sources - the ones that mention improvements or simply neutral adjustments that have happened since 1980. Instead of honestly addressing these other factors, they're brushed off without a second thought:

• "Despite strong increases in productivity, low unemployment, and low inflation..." Those three factors are critical to economic success and should be explained in more detail before moving on.
• "Median household income has increased for all classes since 1980..." [but of course, there's a need to explain it away] "...largely owing to more dual-earner households, the closing of the gender gap, and longer work hours"

Instead of giving employment, productivity, or median income a consideration, the focus is almost entirely on one economic measure (income inequality). In an article that's already quite long, a discursive rant about the various indicators of increasing income inequality since 1980 is out of place. The fact that the article goes on to praise economic growth under a Democratic administration ("The longest economic expansion in modern U.S. history—from March 1991 to March 2001—encompassed the Bill Clinton administration") certainly does not lend the article credibility. If we all infallibly believed that Reagan damaged the economy and Clinton improved it we, of course, wouldn't need sources in the first place. Instead, we can agree that the reader should make his/her own decisions, and that starts with presenting the full picture. Pengkeu (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have other high quality sources, please bring the to the article talk page. My talk page is not the place to discuss this as the issues in question are article related and require the input of the group. --Daniel 17:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; the fact that discussion is required means it's inappropriate to remove the NPOV tag until that discussion has taken place. Pengkeu (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing non neutral about citing a quality source discussing income disparity post 1980. You are the one who makes the connection between this and Reagan. Economists frequently make generalizations by decade regardless of when an election occurs. You need to present these other sources which you want to use before adding tags. --Daniel 18:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that. Pengkeu (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing new technology does not assist the reader in knowing what else is being developed and or being used by others as a replacement or added product for safety and other uses. Stevenagel1 (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You must provide a reliable third party source indicating that this is notable product. If this new product is going to be the first listed, it is going to need a source indicating that it has supplanted the old technology. --Daniel 19:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 	+ 	  	+ 	 

Thought I'd settle to rest your unsavory doubts about Oxbridge and London. If statistics is any measure of greatness, then none comes close to Oxford, Cambridge and London. I'd say all the 4.0 gpa americans from america's best universities seeking another degree at Oxford, Cambridge and/or London pretty much proves my point and destroys yours. Would you like to provide better all-around and all-time verifiable statistical evidence yourself to counter that statement of fact? If you can't, then you have nothing to contribute.

 	+ 	  	+ 	 

Thetruthnow2012 (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What point do you think I'm trying to make? I'm not disparaging any of these schools. The stuff you were adding is complete garbage, it contains phrases like: "very most greatest university in the world and the home of the elite-elite." do you seriously think an encyclopedia should have content like this? --Daniel 08:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your editing my contribution. I should have known better, too. Thanks for the watchful eye! Diligent007 (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for updating the information! --Daniel 08:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does one go about offering new information and new research? I edited a post that said there was no research on a subject - by providing the research that was said not to exist. I don't want to "edit war" just provide the research. I've been researching acupuncture for a paper for my anatomy class and thought I'd add the sources and information I had found. So... how can I go about doing that on the Acupuncture page? There are clinical trials that I'd like to add the sources for.

Dawnfire122 (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at WP:MEDRS which discusses the standards for inclusion of medical research. Next you will want to bring up your proposed changes on the article's talk page and get consensus for your changes. Take a look at WP:BRD for an outline of how this process should proceed. --Daniel 20:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the two links for extraterrestrial minds ... Some sort of snob effect - that you dont check quality, but just erase if link doesnt have bbc like credidentials? I will reintroduce these two links again, if you dont give better reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.155.77 (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did check the quality. Call it snobbery if you want, but neither of the links I removed meet WP:EL. External links need to be from websites known for their credibility, not personal webpages of non notable individuals. --Daniel 22:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Automobiles for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Proposed topic ban of Jespah". Thank you. OlYeller^Talktome 18:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just sent you a message about your last edit Contactzack (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason we should use email for this, no reason to not be transparent, so I will explain it here. You added a section who's sole purpose appeared to be to link to your website, this is generally considered spam. The relevant Wikipedia policies here are WP:SPAM and WP:COI. If you can source this section to reliable third party groups, it may well be useful, but it can't link to your blog. --Daniel 15:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. There are no other reliable groups as I am the developer for the plugin and nothing else like that has been created. I am also the only person I know using those types of Porn 2.0 techniques. That being said, I thought my plugin and my post about were the only two relevant references I could provide on the subject. In conclusion, I would like to include the information again but do I need to omit the links this time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contactzack (talk • contribs) 16:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If no one besides you the creator of the plug in is using it then it is almost definitely not relevant to the topic. Unless reliable sources are discussing this stuff, it can't be included. --Daniel 16:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For exposing a large nest of unreliable sources at Astrology

. Skinwalker (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I just wanted to let you know that I moved your request for help on Astrology to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Astrology, where hopefully more people will be able to take a look at it. Thanks, Mildly Mad^T_C 14:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, I am making all recent contributors to the Astrology article and its discussion page aware of a proposed amendment to the text which discusses the 1976 'Objections to astrology' and the relevance of Carl Sagan's reaction. This is in response to the comments, criticisms and suggestions that have been made on the published text, with the hope of finding a solution acceptable to all. Your opinion would be very welcome.

The proposal is here.

Thanks, -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, I don't know how to contact you other than by this. Admittedly much of the posting has been 'in jest'. However, why have you removed the link to 'Shadow' from Yeovil? He made the BBC News website. He is a local celebrity. Don't abuse your power! - Snopesjnr 01/10/11

If you don't want your contributions deleted you might not want to mix them in with your vandalism. --Daniel 21:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be prudent to check the deletions before actioning them in future then? - SJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snopesjnr (talk • contribs) 22:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable residents" means residents with Wikipedia articles which this guy doesn't have. I think we can move on. --Daniel 22:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then let me set up a Wiki page for him then. The whole of Wiki had to start somewhere. You stated further up this page that you'll only note people with a link from a 'credible website'. Well what is more credible than BBC? You pick and choose what suits your argument at the time because you have admin powers. That's abuse. user:Snopesjnr

See WP:N one mention in a BBC piece isn't enough, we would need multiple non trivial mentions in a variety of sources. If you think I'm abusing my admin powers you are wrong. I haven't used them, I'm acting as a normal editor here. If you really think I am you can report me at WP:ANI. --Daniel 22:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator and only editor has just re-created this page... Thought you'd like to know. --Crusio (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Same for The Return to Gibraltar. --Crusio (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You closed this AfD after the author blanked his article and it was deleted G7. He has now re-created it under a different title (The Return to Gibraltar), so I have moved it back to the original title and reopened the AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is true -- I received the logo for the film from the people at the California International Film Festival and sent it by email to the person below -- why are you doing this? Thank you for your prompt response. Please, read below:

Hi Aaron -- got the following email to which I cannot respond. I'm really under the gun.

Thanx --

Mig --

---

From: "MediaWiki Mail" <wiki@wikimedia.org> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 10:11 AM To: "Migdiachinea" <migdia.chinea@ucla.edu> Subject: Wikipedia page User talk:Migdiachinea has been changed by Theroadislong > Dear Migdiachinea, > > > The Wikipedia page "User talk:Migdiachinea" has been changed on > 10 October 2011 by Theroadislong, with the edit summary: can you supply a > reference for the "honorable mention" > > See > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Migdiachinea&diff=0&oldid=454896007 > for all changes since your last visit. See > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Migdiachinea for the current > revision. > > To contact the editor, visit > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Theroadislong > > Note that additional changes to the page "User talk:Migdiachinea" will > not result in any further notifications, until you have logged in and > visited the page. > > Your friendly Wikipedia notification system > > -- > > This email notification feature was enabled on English Wikipedia in May > 2011 - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Email_notification. If you > would like to switch off your notifications, visit > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences > > Feedback and further assistance: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents

  Archive Spam Delete     Move to Inbox Labels  More 3 of 3617        Film Festival Logos 

InboxX

Reply |Migdia Chinea  

show details 11:21 AM (1 hour ago)

---

Forwarded message ----------

From: California Int'l Shorts Festival <info@calshorts.com> Date: Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 6:06 PM Subject: Re: Need Film Festival Logos To: Migdia Chinea <migdia.chinea@gmail.com>

Hello Migdia, We've attached our festival logo and your honorable mention laurel to this message. Have a wonderful day. Best, Tim

On Aug 10, 2011, at 9:36 AM, Migdia Chinea wrote:

Hi all! Need your festival logos and/or specifications so that I can edit them into my short in the "selections" section -- Thanx so much for your support! Warm regards -- Migdia -- -- Migdia & Cicero & Ulla & Tullia-Zoe & Clodia & Aurelius & Cato the Younger

-- Migdia & Cicero & Ulla & Tullia-Zoe & Clodia & Aurelius & Cato the Younger

2 attachments — Download all attachments View all images Cal Shorts Logo.jpg 992K View Download Cal Shorts Honorable Mention.png 77K

I'm going off of what the California International Short Film Festival list on their website. According to this link the Spring 2011 honorable mention was awarded to “The Red Rope” by Vincent Ma. Anonymous is listed in the selections section. --Daniel 22:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you post the Telf. Nr. that you have? I got curious. Quest09 (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a local landline. I don't think I should post it, who knows who it belongs to. --Daniel 02:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wikipedia:vandalism, and refrain from applying the label to edits that don't deserve it [4]. Also, see the talk page for more info. Buddy431 (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Albaniantrojan replaced the image with an animated gif (now deleted) of a hand giving the middle finger. Regardless of his reasoning this is vandalism. --Daniel 18:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the contents of the .gif file. You have my apologies. Buddy431 (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel,

I really appreciate your help with editing the article on John Stango that I recently overhauled. I wanted to see if you suggest any further changes, and also at what point the neutrality message can be removed. Thanks again for your help. (Wikiforyou82 (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Hi again Daniel,

I just posted this on the John Stango discussion page. I hope that you can help me to move forward with improving this article. Thanks very much.

Hi everyone. I am happy to clear up the issues voiced here. As for the Coro article--that was my first stab at editing a Wiki. I am not employed by or even associated with Coro. I read about them in a college class and found that their article was lacking. As for the John Stango piece, I am John's cousin. After talking with him on numerous occasions, I noticed that his Wiki did not reflect his actual role in the art world or the type of work that he does. I hoped to remedy that by incorporating the sources you see and information from conversations with him. I am very open to making this a legitimate article and would like to know how best to proceed. I did my best to use information that could be backed up by references. Again, please let me know what else I can do. As a newbie editor, I am still figuring out how all of this works. Thanks for your help. (Wikiforyou82 (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiforyou82 (talk • contribs)

Hi Daniel, regarding your recent revert at Muhammad, I've left a lvl 1 censorship (uw-notcensored1) notice at User_talk:ESPK since the editor doesn't seem to be a one-off "complain and go away" editor. If you feel that inappropriate, please feel free to revert my actions there. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me. We'll see what ESPK chooses to do from here. --Daniel 18:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel I noticed you had edited the article on character mask. With whom should I take up the infringement of copyright by Websters' Digital Services? User:Jurriaan 3 november 2011 12:01 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.48.162 (talk)

I'm not sure. You may want to try asking at the help desk. --Daniel 14:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: [[5]]. Thank you! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up Dominus, I'm watching the talk page carefully. I haven't commented much as I don't have a great deal of time to construct reasoned arguments and there are number of people who have been doing an excellent job of voicing my views on the issue. I have added my thoughts to the RfC. --Daniel 19:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, thanks for blowing the whistle on this farce. With the RfCs. I've brought a lot of new editors to this article, and a lot more people are watching it. Keep up the good work! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I was able to get the attention of a large group of editors, the article has improved significantly and I'm proud of that. The next step should be cleaning up the individual astrological sign articles as they are a total mess as well. --Daniel 16:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if there's anything I can do. I'm mostly concerned with the science stuff, but I'll chip in if I can. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your name has been mentioned at Talk:Vinegar Hill, New Zealand, thought you'd want to know in case you have anything to add. Cheers, GiantSnowman 10:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, if IP 206 persists in vandalising the page, the IP should be reported or the article semi-protected. I'm monitoring it, I hope you will, too. Djathinkimacowboy 01:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly create AfDs for List of birds of Santa Cruz County, California and List of birds of Santa Cruz County, California (continued) rather than PRODs? Also, the article represents a list of birds for a particular County, not a "single small town". Best, Kingturtle = (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't seem controversial to me so I went through PROD. If you want to take down the PROD notices I would run it through AfD, but I would be pretty surprised if they passed, so seems like unneeded process. --Daniel 15:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you undo my edit on VTEC? If you do not know internal combustion engines engineering and history, please either refrain from taking such positions or get yourself up to speed!

It is people like you who makes people like me hate wikipedia and hardly ever contribute. This is going to be my last time for a looong time.

Just show me a source that Honda based VTEC on the Alfa system. I actually know quite a bit about the history of internal combustion engines and while I know that Alfa had a VVT system before Honda I've never heard that Honda based their system on it. If I'm wrong, it shouldn't be a problem to provide a source. --Daniel 21:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel J. Leivick,

You are receiving this message because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout without specifying a preference between a full blackout or soft blackout. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI.   — C M B J   00:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Dear Daniel,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to help. I've sent you an email with my details. --Daniel 03:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Biz Kid$, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Keister (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I see you speedied this a few years back. Can you userify for me? She's in the news again and I was wondering what old article said. cheers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You'll find it at User:Milowent/Marilyn Hagerty. There are BLP concerns, so try to get it sourced asap. --Daniel 15:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your self-reverted note on my talk page. Just curious what that was regarding? All I see at Ed Poor's userpage is a user's inappropriately placed message that I reverted. Calabe1992 12:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this is about. I might have forgot to log out on a shared computer at school. I doesn't seem like the account is compromised, but I'll check the computers I used yesterday. --Daniel 16:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Don't know if it is coincidence or not, but I see the article for Rudy Rotta that was total plagiarization has been corrected just after I asked User talk:Orangemike to lend an Administrative hand with the thing. Greetings! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I just happen to watch Mike's talk page and figured I'd handle it. In the future, there is nothing to stop you from removing this type of content. You don't need an admin to remove copyright violations, especially ones filled with ad speak. --Daniel 05:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, you deleted the page of Manchester-based independent publisher Comma Press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Press) in July last year due to "unambiguous advertising or promotion". What happened was that somebody who did work experience with the press accidentally copied over some promotional quotes from the website without realising that this was not customary for a wikipedia page. Like other presses, such as Carcanet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcanet_Press), it would be great to be given the opportunity to list the history, location and many authors associated with the Press on Wikipedia in a purely factual manner. Is it possible to re-instate the page for editing? It would be greatly appreciated. Best wishes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.204.26 (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edit is still being done at the Ford F-Series page. Different IP address. 75.64.249.105--Dana60Cummins (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protected for a week. --Daniel 19:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are serious grammar issues in the text you are attempting to add, which make it very difficult for someone to understand what you are saying. Perhaps if you added it one section at a time it would be easier for someone like myself to fix it for you. I think part (or all) of the conflict here is grounded in language. Are you using some form of machine translation? --Daniel 17:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, Ok lets try one piece at time.

I would appreciate if you could show me what can be done in each of paragraphs. I pasted their texts (plain without links & references) on final of present version of talk page:

Cybershore (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to copy our conversation from Talk:Brazil to my talk page. I can see it just fine. --Daniel 18:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for make sure ;) Cybershore (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	It has been a very long time (years) since I have seen an Admin take so much time with a new editor. Your an asset far beyond what this barnstar can convey. Great job with helping User:Cybershore.. Moxy (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations & Thanks Daniel,

and with due respect, I hope that going forward the Talk Pages of those more controversial (or edited) articles, become more supervised to avoid misunderstandings, as well as the users directed in a more practical and direct way to the resolution of problems.

Now, what next?

Cybershore (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, I don't know what to do with Cybershore. I have never seen such an uncooperative editor in my life. No matter how many times his additions are reverted, he add them back again, over and over. And talking to him on the talk page is impossible. Look at his latest reply: [6] Who will ever read that? No one. He has again added his text to the article about Brazil, even though it is redundant and has wrong information.[7] I'd like to ask you to do something. If that's not possible, my next step will be to go the ANI to report him. --Lecen (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked him for a week following his last comment which contained a personal attack against you. I've also gotten a chance to carefully look at the changes. It is clear that what he is adding is unhelpful. --Daniel 16:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked him for that? I saw far worse from him before. Thank you for your help. But I'll warn you: once the block expires, he will add it again and open a topic at the talk page with a huge block of text no one will bother to read. This is going on for the last couple of years. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been involved before, but he's been warned many times now to change his rhetoric. If these problems continue an indefinite block might be an option. --Daniel 19:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It never too much to remind that:

Being unwilling or unable to counter-argue, over a year and a half, Lecen also have done baseless statements about editions done by me in a certain rude tone,

During all this time, I have responded to him in the same mode, but especifically to these assertions,

not having any left unanswered, unlike him...

...and only me is who was warned and blocked

Curious...

Cybershore (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you specifically about making personal attacks and you chose to ignore it. If Lecen makes a personal attack against you in the future it is likely he will be blocked. If you want to make changes to the article you'll have to focus on content and not the contributors. I've spent a considerable amount of time on this already and consider the matter of your block closed. If you genuinely think I overstepped my bounds you are free to bring it up at WP:ANI. --Daniel 05:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel. I noticed you removed some of the professional wrestling listings from List of African-American firsts, per the RfC. But you apparently overlooked the following five which are still on the list. Can you please remove them?

• First African-American WWE Tag Team Champion: Tony Atlas (partnered with Rocky Johnson, a Black Nova Scotian) (See also: Doom, 1990; Men on a Mission, 1994)
• First African American to win the WWE Championship: Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
• First African American to win the WWE Women's Championship: Jacqueline Moore
• First African American to win the WWE Diva's Championship: Alicia Fox
• First African-American WCW heavyweight champion: Ron Simmons

Thanks and have a great week. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opps. Thanks for letting me know. I was just searching the text for "wrestling." I'll get to it tonight. --Daniel 01:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Thanks. :) --76.189.97.91 (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Daniel. For the last three years Cybershore has been trying, over and over, to add detailed information about the Brzilian early republican period. It's always the same information and it's always the same text in the article's talk page. Three years. That's either persistence or somekind of od behavior. Regardles, during this period no one has supported him and everyone has tried to make him understand that the history section of a country's article is supposed to be short and straightfoward. He has been blocked before precisely because of this weird behavior. I'm tired of hearing him say "spurious quotations" and you seem to be the only who cares. I won't get involved on this anymore, but I'd like to warn you that had Cybershore been an specialist in Brazilian history, he would have been writing articles about it. He hasn't. This is the only thing he does here. For three years. --Lecen (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what is going on either, I think there are language issues, but as I've engaged him I've seen that what he wants to add seems to be helpful. Your help in sorting this out would be greatly appreciated. --Daniel 15:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Daniel,

Regarding the issue about prison of Italians, Germans and Japanese Immigrants/descendents, my justification is above, but if even so, you deems appropriate the inclusion of this information in summary of this period, I would ask you a suggestion on how this should be done briefly, without contains the same spurious inferences detailed above.

As to substantiating citations for this passage (preferably in English, and easy checking), we can all work together

Cybershore (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posters can choose to anonymize there email address to a temporary craigslist address, who will then relay any messages sent to that address to the poster's actual email address. Replying to a post, email address will be visible to the poster. The same Flagging group of individuals using sending addressing only once also send spam in mass to posters inundating there inbox with what look like blank responses These messages have the potential of having Javascript or embedded objects in there e-mails. Craigslist posters have also reported the tracking cookie (Ad.yieldmanager.com) and (207.net)in there browser history.

http://www.craigslist.org/about/anonymize

http://www.craigslist.org/about/help/replying_to_posts

http://www.spywareremove.com/removeAdyieldmanagercom.html

unless you have been there you realy do not know

http://chicago.craigslist.org/wcl/zip/3291189601.html

Don't include html forms in emails. The Yahoo! Mail client warns users that submitting forms in email can be dangerous

Don't include Javascript in emails

Don't include embedded objects in emails (like flash or active-x).

These issues will need to be discussed by a reliable independent source. Using craigslist itself is original research. We need outside sources to confirm notability. --Daniel 20:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK but what I wrote is just a pro log of the truth what you are doing is protecting craigslist reputation

http://www.emailfinder.com/resources/art-craigslist-email-scams.html

http://www.truth-or-consequences.com/badder_business_bureau/craigslist_sucks/craigslist_sucks.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.227.148.73 (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I have no interest in protecting or damaging the reputation of any website. My only interest in this matter is maintaining the encyclopedic value of the article. You might want to have a look at the essay WP:TRUTH. --Daniel 02:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are an employee of craigslist I think you are obligated to disclose that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.227.148.73 (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connection of any kind with craigslist. You on the other hand seem to have trouble understanding what encyclopedic content is. --Daniel 18:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You had earlier asked me about "The Encyclopedia of Papillons". This encyclopedia is actually a document of a pieced together book. Answer this question on YOUR talk page and I will tell you more. You are on my watchlist so I will get back to you. Answer this question: "Do you have a papillon or any other dog that you would like to know more about?" If you answer on your talk page, I will get back to you. Happy editing! DEIDRA C. (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this book meet WP:RS? Who wrote it? Who published it? --Daniel 22:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Daniel. The title of the book is mistaken. Go back to Papillon (dog) and look at HEALTH and check out the changes I made. If you precisely scroll of the last little {7} at the end of the article you will get the data! Just scroll over it and you will get the author's name, the book's name, and the number of pages! OK? Sorry about that! Have a good day! DEIDRA C. (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC) DEIDRA C. (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case you did not see it, there is now a discussion ongoing here. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 20:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]