Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sjb72 (talk | contribs) at 21:01, 11 July 2008 (Reverted edits by 24.131.120.246 (talk) to last version by StephenBuxton). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

/Archive 1 Archive 2

Ana Free

Hello, I am fairly new at the Misplaced Pages and a non native english speaker. You checked the Ana Free (http://en.wikipedia.org/Ana_Free) article yesterday which was suggested for speedy deletion by a user and it was declined. The very same user now requested the deletion of the page due to missing neutral sources about the notability. Initially the article had many links to independent sites (You tube, a video view counter script, myspace, 2 fan sites and Radio station sites). Those links where removed by another user a few days back. Beeing new into the Misplaced Pages and having my language handycap I was wondering if you could help and give some advise here. Are those links (can be found in the history of the page last version on 10.07.2008 13.20) allowed and considdered neutral and why is that user who suggested the site for deletion so keen on having the article deleted? Thank You! TB-Al-x —Preceding comment was added at 16:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

ShadowSpear Special Operations Edits

Hello, I was in discussions with another admin prior to you deleting ths article (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=ShadowSpear_Special_Operations&action=edit) He warned me the first time (please see the discussion page). I rewrote it to include the stated importance. You stated that it lacked "a reason stating its importance", but it was revised to make this point clear. I would appreciate it if you would recheck the article, as I made the adjustments that the other administrator told me to make. Rngr223 (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, normally new sections are added to the bottom of the page so I missed this one. The article still didn't assert any real notability. All it really said was that it was going to be a reliable source on Special Ops. If you can provide a reliable independent source per WP:RS that discusses this website, I would be happy to restore the article for you. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sir, http://www.specialoperator.com has a featured article on its front page, written by a well known retired Army Special Forces Colonel. How many sources do you require? Thank you. Rngr223 (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well something from an established reliable source would make things clearer. It doesn't looks like specialoperator.com is a well known reliable source per WP:RS and "Reginald Weinheimer" gets zero google hits so the claim that he is well known doesn't really jive. I'm not saying that sources do not exist, but I have not been able to find any. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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/search/?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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

Mang Gorn Luang

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

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)

Please block user Colliver55 for undo edits

Daniel Leivick, please review this Great Power history link, user Colliver55 is violating Misplaced Pages'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.

Please see the discussion at the bottom where it says "Russia is a Superpower not a great power". 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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· /_Cont 12:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Farmer's Markets in the United Kingdom

Apparently you deleted this - any reason why?

This was a resource for people wanting to know where they could buy produce fresh from the grower and I can't think of any reason that you would want to deny anybody that information.

Very confused as to why you would choose to delete this . . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.113.142 (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted because of this AfD debate Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of farmers' markets in the United Kingdom. Misplaced Pages is not a directory. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

One last pharaoh

Hello.

I would like to talk about a disruptive user called One last pharaoh. He recently started to block my and Vladimir Historian's edits in BMP-1 article that are Egypt related. Our edits are based on a book by Steven Zaloga who is a well known expert on military technology (we even have a scan from the book to prove it).

We tried to settle this on our own via the article's discussion page but the said user is basically questioning Zaloga's book without citing any kind of sources (therefore original research) and at the same time he keeps on reverting our edits and threatens us with the 3RR.

I know that you dealt with him before and therefore I would like to ask you to help us since you're an administrator and you can settle this once and for all.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it is settled (am I right?). The article currently uses the Zaloga reference properly stating the number of Syrian and Egyptian BMPs captured or destroyed. I will be watching and will make sure that One last pharaoh respects the consensus. Don't hesitate to ask for help in the future. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not settled. What One last pharaoh did this time was change the information contained by changing the "The Israelis destroyed or captured 40 to 60 Egyptian BMPs and about 50 to 60 Syrian BMPs." (like Zaloga written in his book) to "Egypt lost 40-60 BMP-1 IFVs and Syria lost 50-60 BMP-1 IFVs". This is not the same as it does not include the information about Israelis capturing some the mentioned vehicles. He than argued in the talk page making a few statements (without citing any kind of references) which were supposed to prove that Israeli forces couldn't capture any Arab vehicles. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I see this and have commented on the talk page. However as an admin there is not much more I can do in a content dispute. I don't see pharaoh's actions as clear enough disruptive behavior for me to make a unilateral block. If you want you could make an RfC which I would support in reference to pharaoh's history of nationalistic edits or if you think I am being too weak you can take it to WP:ANI where another admin might take action.

It's not like I want him/her banned. Now it turns out that it was just a plain misunderstanding on his/her part. Some of his/her edits are quite valuable like the ones in T-62 article where he supplied the article with a lot of information about the Egyptian T-62 variants. Also it's better if he just learns why he's wrong. Anyway, thanks for your support. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah looks like a misunderstanding due to English comprehension. I think it is taken care of now. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please block user UKPhoenix79 for undoing edits and not using discussions page

Daniel Leivick, please review this Great Power history link, user UKPhoenix79 is violating Misplaced Pages's policy, I created a talk discussions page to consenus and user "UKPhoenix79" 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.

Please see the discussion at the bottom where it says "Russia is a Superpower not a great power". I have a discussions topic and user UKPhoenix79 will not discuss anything, please block him until he agrees to talk about the issue or turn off the Great Powers page until this edit war is discussed on a professional manner. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.234.250 (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation - are we done?

You have been involved in mediation at: Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-15 WikiProject Automobiles. Discussion has subsided, and I think that the issues have been resolved if not specifically, more by identifying the reality of an apparent consensus. Is there any need to continue or should we close this process? Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes this issue is resolved. I hope everyone has moved on. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Joel Widzer

Please explain your changes to the Joel Widzer Page? the removed contents are not Pr nor ad like, rather they are factual —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.223.181 (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As you are the subject, you might want to take a look at WP:COI. It can be very hard to detect non neutral language on a subject close to one's self. In any case the info read like a PR statement and had no source so it was removed. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

are you sure i'm the subject. there are numoures google entries that shoew the anount of travel. pluse his book is considered to be the 1st book that spoke to vaule travel. you seem to be harsh in your edits, and unfair... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.223.181 (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am sure you are the subject or at least working very closely with him. Please read WP:V, who says that his book is considered the first book on value travel? --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The amount of travel is verified in all sorts of publications including publication of his book. Also mentioned in the NY Times, and on MSNBC. With all respect, you come across rather arrogant seeming to know who is writing entries on the site. There should be no place for name calling on the site or false accusations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.223.181 (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not a false accusation, I am not stupid. Your first edit was changing a talk page entry made by the subject of the article (obvious due to user name). You changed it to make it look as if he did not write the article, why would anyone else do this. If you can provide a link to the NY Times or MSNBC confirming the travel claim then it can be added. However using claims made by the subject is not going to work. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I am reporting you as you have a Nazi type of attitude. Look at the links on the pages and see the info for yourself. Isn’t that why there are references? 

Not sure I understand your other message —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.223.181 (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to report me, I think more oversight would be good in this situation. All the links at the bottom of the page are written by the subject, none are from reliable sources. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

From forbes.com http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2007/11/23/widzer-travel-airlines-oped-cx_jwi_1123widzer.html Joel Widzer is a travel consultant who has accumulated nearly 3 million lifetime flight miles in the course of visiting 94 countries. He is the managing partner of JlwConsulting and the author of The Penny Pincher's Passport to Luxury Travel, now with a new third edition.

Is it your intent to make a war of this? Seems like you can accept the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.223.181 (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why you persist in vandalizing the article. And why you state it is self written. Please provide sustainable proof. Otherwise please stop your edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 01:19, 20 June 2008 (talk • contribs) 72.211.223.181 (UTC)

72.211.223.181 has been stopped instead for 3RR. Toddst1 (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Muscle cars

Your cpyed of my awkward "Muscle cars were built for drag racing; also for street use; also for both" to the much smoother "Muscle cars were built for street use and in some cases racing" makes for a simpler read but loses the deliberate distinctions contained in the original: some muscle cars were made for racing, some for the street, and some for both. Perhaps you can reword again to preserve the flow of your improvement at the same time as preserving the distinctions? BTW I agree re. the '60s/'70s point and SA/UK order. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 06:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. I was originally thinking about saying "and/or" but that isn't really encyclopedic writing. Here is the thing though, to my knowledge, no real muscle cars were built entirely for racing, all were street legal, some were made with the intention of being used mainly on the track. How about; "While muscle cars were intended at least partly for street use, many were designed to be used in various types of racing." how does that sound? Maybe still a little awkward. As a side note, in the future, this can probably be discussed on the Muscle car talk page, where everyone can have a say. Good working with you. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good solution. Per yr. advice I'll open this up on the MC talk page. Likewise, a pleasure. Writegeist (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

RedScare Industries

Where can I find the talk page for this deleted article? I thought it would have been an overwhelming vote for a KEEP. Thanks. Messwemade (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The AfD resulted in a delete, it can be found here. I only deleted the talk page which was just a message from the owner of the company. If you would like I can post the deleted message for you. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

How is the consensus merge?

With two keep votes and one merge, how the heck did you come up with merge as a consensus? Aren't you supposed to read these things before closing with a consensus, so the consensus reflects the discussion? --Blechnic (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we have this exact discussion a month ago? I saw a rough consensus to merge, you undid the merger (not a problem) and now it looks like someone else has redone the merger. I would suggest discussing it with them. A merge result from AfD doesn't have that much weight, consensus can easily change. Although if you want my opinion, the Trellium D is better of as part of the episode article. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I don't know if we had the same discussion, but whatever, it's do as you want rather than consensus, in other words. --Blechnic (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you and I both have to follow consensus and we did have this exact converstion, it is in my second archive. As I said before I thought consensus was to merge during the AfD, maybe I was wrong. AfD debates decide whether to delete article or not. They do not have any real special weight in merge discussions. It still looks to me that consensus is to merge, but maybe I am wrong. Why don't you discuss with the people that merged the article, or bring it up the article talk page? --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'm very disappointed to see the article http://en.wikipedia.org/Ray_Joseph_Cormier totally destroyed by you and one other, on the edge of vandalism, but I'm no stranger to disappointment. I had hoped to be able to complete it and then find someone to help me to perfect it so it would read encyclopedic. The interaction with Prime Minister Trudeau concurrent to the 3 Popes in 1878 was factual and prophetic, not fantasy as one editor wrote. I have copies obtained under the Access to Information Act of RCMP reports confirming the substance of those facts. How could they be posted as references or citations? Those incidents could have been re-worded rather than deleted. The Declaration on Remembrance Day 1985, in the presence of the Governor-General of Canada, Government Leaders, the Military, Ambassadors of the Nations and 25,000 people was Publicly declared and prophetic: "Hear O people and Nations, even to the ends of the Earth, the Word of the Lord God who is, and was, and is to come, The Almighty. The Lord has a controversy with the people. Do you do well to honour the dead, and yet, deny the God of the Living? Why do you follow the vain traditions of men, and make of no effect, the principles of God? You come here for one hour one day a year in a great show of public patriotism, and then forgetting, go back to work and make the same careless mistakes made by the generations prior to the 1st and 2nd World Wars. Hitler was killed, but it's his legacy that remains. A Soviet-American military-industrial complex consuming $trillions of dollars every year, holding the entire World hostage............" "Hostage" was the last word he said perched on a bus shelter roof, as police got up and grabbed his megaphone. He was arrested for shouting, causing a disturbance, convicted and fined $250. He appealed without a lawyer to the Supreme Court of Canada. is exactly factual, prophetic and important, referenced and in Court documents. The world is in fact being held hostage to the War on terrorism subsequent to the prophecy. What further verification is required? Since I discovered the article April 19, approximately 2500 views were registered to the page from an average of 60 views a month for the two years previous. According to Misplaced Pages because they did not object is considered consent to the way it read. This paragraph from the article is significantly important and prophetic. "In 1981, Cormier hitchhiked from Ottawa to Whitehorse, Yukon to draw attention to Revelation 19:11 . Newspapers across the country chronicled his journey, and twenty years later the world was stunned to witness 9/11 as described in Revelation 18. There was an off site link so a user could read directly 19:11 and 9/11 from Revelation themselves. Even the references were deleted. It requires hindsight to know if prophecies are fulfilled. This is certainly controversial, and some people can not and will not accept the facts. This could have been edited to be more encyclopedic in style rather than deleted. I admit some some information was superfluous and that could have been corrected. I am a newbie, and the editors are respected members and Administrators of the Misplaced Pages community. Do I have any options left? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok I will definitly give you a break as a newbie, no problem there. However you should give me a little credit as an experienced editor and give a thought to the possibility taht I don't make edits hap hazardly or vandalize and I maybe, just maybe I am right in this case. You have a very clear conflict of interest as you are the subject of the article and believe you are a prophet, this makes it very difficult if not impossible for you to write a neutral encyclopedia article on yourself. You must understand that even if you believe something is a fact (you are prophet, the world is being held hostage to the war on terrorism) others may disagree. What you wrote was more along the lines of an autobiography. Much of what I deleted was either unverfiable from relaible sources(the jobs you worked at during your life and how you felt about them or the content of your speeches), your ownoriginal research and sythesis (the veracity of your prophecies) or so far from neutraly worded that it was unsalvagable. If you read the policies that I have linked to you will understand what was wrong with the article in its prior state, you may also want to take a look at how other quality biography articles are written. As for the number of hits on the aritcle page, it has nothing to do with consent, just because someone doesn't complains doesn't mean that the article is endorsed by 2500 people. Page hits hold no weight in content debates. As a side note 60 hits a month is by far the lowest hit count on the biography of a living person I have ever seen. In regards to you final question: Your options at this point are to continue down the dispute resolution path, leave the article as it is or neutrally expand it with verifiable and reliable sources and accept changes made by editors without a conflict of interst. If you choose the latter, I would suggest editing here for a while before returning to your own biography. If you were to edit articles not directly related to you, but in your sphere of interst, you would learn much about how things work here. Writing owns own encyclopedia article, is probably the most difficult thing to do on Misplaced Pages, but for some reason it is the first thing many people attempt. Good luck editing in the future. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sincere thanks for the notice on my talk page and I will comply. Naturally I respect you and the administrators experience but user talk is where any conflict is resolved, is that not so? Anyone putting themselves in my place would know and understand the joy and excitement of finding out someone that was almost a casual encounter two years ago started a web page on you, and you just discover it April 19. I have not been able to reach the administrator who created the article for some time. I suspect he forgot all about creating this and two years later, out of the blue, I contact him saying I'm back! He has other priorities and even my friends aren't interested as I am because they already know many of the incidents. That's natural and I accept that. I had no one to help develop the article. I admit the article contained much supporting information but I was thinking people would be interested in understanding the influencing factors of the life. To be honest, I have to admit I was gloating a little with this story. "During days off between shift rotation, he toured BC and Washington State. One day while walking by the docks in Vancouver, he ran into the former Commanding Officer of HMCS Donnacona in Montreal. He was now in command of HMCS Oriole (KC 480), the Canadian Navy's sleek, sailing ketch, and invited Cormier aboard as his civilian guest for a week long cruise. The word was in 2nd year training, the select few Officer Cadets in third year training chosen to serve on the Oriole were privileged and accepted by the Good ol' boy network. It was a joy for Cormier to leisurely enjoy the spectacular scenery as his former classmates did all the work." Being aware of a perceived conflict of interest, can you admit I made the attempt to be as neutral as possible considering the circumstances? The encounters with Prime Minister Trudeau are unembellished, trying to keep them as simple as possible. I have copies of RCMP records of those times with the specific incidents that were in the article. How can the fact of how I got into the position of directly handing him letters without middlemen the last 7 years he was PM be known and understood? That was prophetic work. How can those incidents be converted to encyclopedic language? Do I have to mail them to Misplaced Pages as confirmation of the facts? Will that make a difference as far as proof and citations? I sensed yesterday the article would be edited beyond any point of recognition as to what was there so I copied it. Yesterday I was feeling depressed, overwhelmed and defeated by what you and Kingturtle did. Today is a new day and I feel stronger. Most people reading the article will not go to history or even to the Discussion so they will have no clue what you did. The article is the article. Is there an express Misplaced Pages rule that says I can not place the original article in the Discussion for a real discussion? Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the deal, you have led an interesting life which may make a great story, however many of the details you wrote in the article are not fit to be put on Misplaced Pages because their significance and verifiability is not confirmed by reliable source (please read this page carefully). As example of a source that does not meet WP:RS lets use the RCMP records. Sources like these are usually classified as primary sources, in order for us to use them in any significant way, we would need a reliable secondary source to use them as a reference for an article or book about you, than we could use the article or book as a reference for the Misplaced Pages article about you (encyclopedias are tertiary sources). As for the talk page issue, it isn't going to happen, there is not a specific rule against posting historical versions of an article on a talk page, but it clearly violates the spirit of WP:TALK. You are of course welcome to post specific selected quotes for discussion. However I will reiterate what kingturtle said on your talk page and encourage you to recuse yourself from editing your own biography at least until you get a good grasp of policy and how things get done here. In all honesty I have seen this happen a dozen time before, when a user expands or creates their own bio and then finds it torn apart by well intentioned editors, it can't be fun for you, but unfortunately that is how Misplaced Pages works and that is also why we have guidlines like WP:COI. Just to emphasis my advice I will say it once more: edit for a while, learn how things work here. Start small, fix some issue or add references on topics that interest you but aren't directly related to you. Once you learn the ropes here, it will be literally hundreds of times easier and less stressful to deal with this sort of thing. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Daniel, I agree with the 2 or 4 of you engaging in this discussion. The article does need major reworking. That is not the issue for me. The issue now is how it can be improved to meet Misplaced Pages standards. If you read kingturtles talk, I told him even before the article was decimated I would recuse myself even though I know it it not forbidden but discouraged. The history will show I honoured my word with one exception, the images I restored to the article for reasons explained on kingturtle's talk. He removed them and I have chosen to accept that for now. From my POV you are imposing censorship on the other members of Misplaced Pages. The images, as they are tagged, conform to Misplaced Pages requirements. You will not even let other members see them, let alone offer an opinion in the dispute. Even as a newbie I can see that. That attitude is similar to the probation I was put on in 1977.

I also have a different POV reading the words of WP: TALK. Putting the removed article to Discussion is actually living up to the spirit and it says so in the letter: Share material: The talk page can be used to store material from the article which has been removed because it is not verified, so that time can be given for references to be found. New material can sometimes be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article. Let the other members offer an opinion. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really want to get involved with the image issue as my fair use knowledge is limited. As for the talk page, posting some parts of the article is fine as long as they are posted along with suggestions for improvement and verification. Dumping an entire old version of an article on the talk page is not ok as it really doesn't help improve anything and to some it might seem like an end run around the deletion of unverifiable, original research, peacock terms etc. If you want, you can post certain sections with suggestions as to how to improve them, but posting the entire article isn't going fly. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Re your last entry in Discussion of http://en.wikipedia.org/Ray_Joseph_Cormier, I have recused myself from making any more edits to the article. I can only hope other editors will have the interest to examine the Discussion page and the history of the article to see what you have removed, cleaning up any peacock terms and restore to the article what they consider suitable encyclopedic NPOV information. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• You were a participant in removing 95% of the content in the article. This was left in "In 1986, to complete his Canada-wide mission, he hitchhiked East to Quebec and the Maritimes.", It may have been an oversight, but that makes no sense without restoring this "In 1981, Cormier hitchhiked from Ottawa to Whitehorse, Yukon to draw attention to Revelation 19:11 . Newspapers across the country chronicled his journey........" I have recused myself from editing the article. Would you please restore this to the article with the references also removed? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

St Margaret's C. of E. High School Edit

Hi there Daniel, I was just wondering why you deleted the addition of John Owen Foulkes' MBE. I go to the school and I was pleased to see that the head of the Sixth Form (where I will be going next year) had been awarded for all of his hard work.

Please give me a reason, thanks.

Well to be honest, I deleted it as a likely vanity/hoax addition after I saw taht you added yourself to 1992. It looks like it is probably ok to add, feel free to readd it if you would like. To avoid this problem in the future, you should cite it with a reliable source in the proper reference format, to learn how to do this see WP:CITE. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yer, sorry about that, was just a joke adding myself to it, but this is real, and thanks for the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torres09lfc (talk • contribs) 13:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Dropped ball

Yours, Superpower has been protected by you for near a month... way past the normal day or so for edit warring flare-ups. Even when I was mediating the flame wars in the Tsu shima articles, don't recall more than a three day stoppage. I don't think I've ever seen such a long protection. Better get with it! It's already ruined your rep! (Thought you might prefer this to an AN/I post! <G>) Guess they'll make any ole incompetent an admin these daze! <BSEG> Cheers! // FrankB 00:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly note. I assume you have never made any mistakes? I'll also assume those incompetent comments are ment to be sarcasm. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Druze

Please look at this. I don't understand how you or any of the administrators allow such edits to go unnoticed. 63.216.113.124 (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please revert the edit or I'll be forced to do it myself. 63.216.113.124 (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you can allege citation and then post only that material which suits you from those sources. Your citations are suspect - I have examined them and they are biased, out of date (cf. taqiyya), and usually do not say what you claim they say! Not only that, but you refuse to discuss this issue on the talk page and you left a 1-warning ban threat on my talk page without signing or discussion. em zilch (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but after you dropped a 3RR warning on 63.216.113.124's page, s/he again reverted the page (which is now locked to all edits). em zilch (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I was warning the editor about a different set of edits, involving the description of Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah in the second paragraph which was clearly inappropriate. To be honest this is very far from my area of expertise so I would prefer not to get much more deeply involved. I would suggest discussing this with the admin who protected the page. It is possible that they may revert the IP user while the page is fully protected. Beyond that I would suggest trying to discuss this on the Druze talk page. Let me know if you need any more help. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

O lol, no, I don't want it reverted, I want to let you know the user you warned did it again. At this point, it's probably irrelevant because he's coughed up a user account and might consider writing on the talk page. (One small step at a time, right?) But thanks anyway, haha. em zilch (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

One last pharaoh... again...

Hello.

Recently out "favorite" user One last pharaoh has started to fight again. If want the details check Talk:List of main battle tanks by generation#Where is rest?.

In short he states that he's friendly when he's surely not, he again has problems with the language and has "warned" me and says that I'm lucky that he hasn't "reported" me yet. I don't know for what those warnings are? For trying to explain to him what he does wrong and what he should do for both his and our benefit?

Either way your assistance would be greatly appreciated (that is if you have time and energy).

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like you two don't get along at all, but it does look like you came up with a good solution. First don't worry about the warnings they are just empty threats. Onelastpharoah's English is not very good and I think this leads to many of his problems here. I completely understand how he aggravates you, but my best advise is to focus on the content and not on the editor, don't worry about his grammar, word choice and spelling and try to focus on coming to an agreement. The last time I dealt with him it was difficult, but in the end we came to an understanding. I do see a problem in pharoah's general editing pattern and have warned him about in the past, but at this point I don't see anything that is really actionable. You are always welcome to come to me for help if this continues to be a problem and of course if you think I am wrong about not taking action, you can take this sort of thing to WP:ANI. Regards and keep up the good editing. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Conflict Resolution

With the passage of time and away from the heat of the moment, I just want to let you know that reviewing your postings, I agree with most of what you said. Being new to how thing work around here, I appreciate even your tone, explaining it from a teachers experience to a new student. The article did/does needs serious work to bring it up to Wiki standards. I'm hopeful this will happen now that Kingturtle listed it on the RFCbio list. I have recused myself from editing the article, but remain active in the talk. Thanks. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• This was posted to J Milburn talk toady

Good Day J! I've been accused at times of wearing my emotions on my sleeve and yesterday I showed that by changing this section header as a tangible display. I went to bed happy, pleased that after such a long discussion started by the images being removed, we, personally, had passed a threshold as it were. I still believe that, so you can imagine my surprise and disappointment to wake up and find the images deleted, not by you. When I went to bed the dispute over the image "Second police warning for God's emissary" was ended with a Keep consensus and a different tag noting this. That is gone as well which I don't understand. I had assured you the FUR tag was only a temporary measure. This dispute within Misplaced Pages required my immediate focus. If the article was in the top 100 list, I am confident there would have been a consensus to keep both images. This was more difficult with such a smaller number of users involved in the discussion. My optimism was restored when Kingturtle listed the article in the RFCbio list. Nothing! I have been pleading for someone to restore the information about the 1981 trip to Whitehorse, Yukon with the verification newspaper references removed from the article. Nothing! I am seriously considering abandoning Misplaced Pages to the neutral netherworld as not being worth my time and effort. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)