Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:25, 30 June 2009

/Archive 1/ Archive 2/ Archive 3/ Archive 4

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.

Airsoft

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

Thanks, Drunken Shinobi.

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

Suspicious edits

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

Request to undelete Shopit

You were the last person to delete the Shopit wikipedia page and from what I can tell we need to appeal to you to recreate it. I'm newer to our company and have read through the previous reasons for being deleted and can assure you that blatant advertising will not happen again. We've done our research and would like to be able to recreate our page. If you're not who I need to contact can you please let me know where to go from here? I appreciate it, thank you! Dreamxagain (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't think that you should create the article as you have a conflict of interest. You should probably read WP:COI which explains our guidelines on this matter. You also might want to take a look at WP:BFAQ which contains answers to questions regarding articles on one's own business. Also keep in mind that the subject will need to pass our basic notability requirement outlined at WP:N. You are free to create the article at anytime, but it may be deleted again for similar reasons. If you would like you can create the article on your own userpage or subpage and have myself or another editor look it over before moving it to the main space where it will be vulnerable to deletion. Let me know if you have any other questions. --Leivick (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Relapse

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

Peter F. Cross

This article was so speedily deleted that I didn't have a chance to even place a {hangon} tag on it! It was deleted within five minutes of creation, and while it was still being edited. Cross was an engraver at the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia and did design a medal - and also helped create a notable gold coin. He was a minor subject of a numismatic magazine article on that $20 double eagle. That article also had proper references, including that of a U.S. government website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OldsVistaCruiser (talk • contribs) 23:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The reference was a five line profile, which doesn't add up to notability. You are free to recreate the page with proper referencing if you like. You might want to create it in your user space first so it doesn't get deleted, than when it is ready you can move it to the article space. --Leivick (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Relapse cover

Hi, may I ask you to delete all but current versions of the Relapse album cover? Thanks! Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Leivick (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

You have acted directly against the consensus at Apocalypticism. Please don't do that. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Four of the six people at the AfD suggested a redirect or merge. As it stands the article contains little content that isn't covered on the End times page aside from a long redundant list of apocalyptic fiction. I think it should be a redirect, but if you want to work on the article you are welcome to. --Leivick (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Willie Colón

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you decide to just leave my page as it is and ignore my wishes, I will make it a point to declare my disappointment in the manner your information is collected and the questionable veracity of your "💕" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waccolon (talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Gamephoton is not a blog

Gamephoton is legit review gaming website. The site is official and true. Did you actually spend time checking www.gamephoton.com first before you delete it? If not, I encourage you to check it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ps1on1c99 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The website does not appear to be a reliable source per WP:RS it looks like it is a personal webpage and most of its content is hosted by wordpress, a blog hosting website. The content you are adding is also in violation of WP:NPOV as it is quoting a "reviewer's" opinion as fact. What you are doing is not far from adding spam links as you appear to be here only to promote a single source. --Leivick (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Gamephoton is an actual game information site, so what do you mean as reliable source? It isn't like science how molecules work or how the ecosystem of the environment is affected by certain source. It's a game that is for people and people need to have information about it. Gamespot and IGN are no different than gamephoton; the only thing that they differ is that they have been online for years. You are looking at the degree of reputation between a website that has been existed for years and vice versa. The reason gamephoton promotes suitable information that readers want about the game. Please do not consider Gamephoton as a non-reliable source because it will insult the gamephoton reviewer who have poured their time and effort in researching the games they bought and played. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ps1on1c99 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:RS which explains what a reliable source is. Gamephoton does is not an authoritative source and is not known for editorial oversight or accuracy. It is different from IGN or Gamespot as these are very well known websites whose opinions are very important in the video game world, Gamephoton does not appear to have attracted any attention from the video game industry or player base. The information you continue to add is also non neutral and makes authoritative claims about video games, even if IGN had made these observations, they would still need to be rephrased to indicate that they are merely opinions rather than facts. --Leivick (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Yes, I read WP:RS that is why I changed the wording style from my previous posts from opinionated to more neutral and about the reliability of the source. Come on, how much reliable wikipedia wants it? A game is for people to enjoy and judge whether it's good or bad. Unless you are reviewing Quantum Physics or E=MC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ps1on1c99 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that we are able to discuss this civilly, but Misplaced Pages requires it's sources to be authoritative which Gamephoton is not it is a self published source and it gets only 2 relevant Google hits which indicates that it is on the very far edges of the video game world (this is the difference between Gamephoton and major review websites like IGN). You are right, games are for people to enjoy and they are great for people to write about which makes it good that sites like Gamephoton exist, however Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and needs to be selective about what sources of information it uses. An encyclopedia should include only what major notable figures have to say about things and should not reiterate what is said on a personal website or blog. The other thing you need to keep in mind is the difference between fact and opinion, encyclopedias only state fact. Saying, "the game developers implement x perfectly" is a statement of opinion, saying "an IGN reviewer said that the developers implemented X perfectly" is a statement of fact and would be appropriate. However saying "a Gamephoton reviewer said that the developers implemented X perfectly" would leave the reader wondering who Gamephoton is or why its opinion matters, thus these sources should not be used. One more thing to keep in mind is that we don't use the second person verb tense in an encyclopedia, saying "You start the game in a bunker" is the second person and implies that the reader has played or will play the game which may not be the case, it needs to be phrased "the player starts the game in a bunker." If you wish to contribute Misplaced Pages and I hope you, it would be much less controversial to source review information from reliable prominent sources. --Leivick (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Heel and Toe technique

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

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

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

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

There you have it.Skepticus (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Vega article

Hello- I spent three months on this article. It is complete and well written, and an expert would find nothing missing. I provided ninety percent of the text and all the free images for it. Most of the minor corrective edits you made were needed and appreciated, but a couple of edits are questionable, as certain words or phrases convey a style, which means there are different ways to write the same thing and one isn't right or wrong. Maybe an article that you write can have every word the way you'd like them. More important for the article at this point might be a step towards getting it an A or FL rating, as it's complete and well organized as any auto article here and better than most rated higher. Mostly all of the referenced text, the images and careful editing went into it since its B rating Dec 2008, well before my extensive contribution. Thanks and regards, Vegavairbob (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for writing the article! I really do appreciate it as it is one of the best automotive articles out there. I felt the style edits I made where good and I think most featured article reviewers would agree that the text I changed was overly conversational, but I don't want to step on your toes, so feel free to leave it the way you want it. That being said I think the article is close to being a featured article, if you want I would be happy to nominate it and we can get feedback on detail changes from a wider group, that being said the reviewers will undoubtedly want to make many changes and in the end you wont have any more control over the article than anyone else (some people can get upset if they detect ownership issues). Let me know where you want to go from here, and thanks again for working on an excellent article. --Leivick (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. I am concerned that any of the carefully selected images would be deleted or major changes would be made as I feel that everything is just right on a content basis. I have taken instructions from an administrator to make it more neutral by adding the problems section. With that section, the article shouldn't be littered throughout with negative comments, opinions or quotes about the car's shortcomings (like the internet articles) as all the cars referenced problems are in that section. The neutral flag was removed a while back and most edits from others have been spelling. I haven't reverted more than a couple of minor edits. How much do things get changed when considered for feature status? Can I change some edits back or work with someone's edit? If the article is considered complete do they leave the content as is? Thanks for the nomination consideration.Vegavairbob (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

To answer your questions the best I can. I doubt any images will be deleted, as they all appear properly licensed and add greatly to the article. As for changes made during a FA review, I can't say for sure, some reviewers could want major changes although I don't know what they would be (FA reviews go over the article with a fine tooth comb). One thing I could see happening is a request for more varied sourcing which might mean using the internet articles you referred to. In my opinion the problems section is fine the way it is (although it needs more inline citations), but the general view is that criticism as well as praise should be spread throughout an article in proportion to the view's prominence. Unfortunately being the major contributor to the article doesn't give you any more say as to how the article is structured so if you don't like a change you will have to discuss it and if consensus supports the change, there really is nothing you will be able to do about it as Misplaced Pages is controlled group consensus rather than seniority or contributions. I don't quite understand your last question, no article is ever really considered complete, and improvements should always be welcome even to featured articles. I am going to bed now, but if you have any more question feel free to ask and I will try and answer tomorrow night. One more thing to keep in mind is that if you don't want to nominate the article for FA review, I won't do it, but that doesn't mean that someone else come along and nominate itin the future, so changes are more or less inevitable. Good working with you and thanks for the barnstar. --Leivick (talk) 09:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dan

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Your contributions, help and guidance are appreciated.Vegavairbob (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

NSX electric steering

as per your reference the NSX uses a full electric power steering system. The electro-hydraulic systems use an electric motor to drive the power hydraulic steering pump. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. zedy (talk • contribs) 22:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. If you need any help editing let me know, but it looks like you got the hang of it. --Leivick (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

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

Sounds good. --Leivick (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Vega article

I can't believe what Seicer did to this article. Check his final edit. He totally changed the format. I reverted it back but left out the DeLorean section which he claimed was was gross fair use abuse. Then he tagged it fan site? peacock? essay? Is he kidding. I've seen some junk auto articles. He should have enough to keep himself busy. Everything in the article is referenced. Please help to get this guy to do something useful. Please remove tagsVegavairbob (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with Seicer's addition of all those tags, as I think they are overkill, but he may have legitimate issues, he is a good editor who knows what he is doing and you did revert his edits without explanation. I am going to ask him to post his concerns on the talk page at chevy vega. I don't have time at the moment to look over all the edits in question, but it looks like he is concerned with the long block quotes used int the article, which actually might be a problem. I really hope that we can all work together to improve the article. --Leivick (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it only because he totally changed it, not for the better. I left his deletion of the DeLorean sub-section because it is all quotes. I rewrote, as instructed, removing most of the quotes from the Showroom stock sub section he deleted and reinserted it after my rewrite. I left his minor edits as well and also added back minor edits made by another after his. His total reformating was not necessary and incorrect actually, grouping the Cosworth Vega section together with the Engine section which is a different engine! What a mess. His edit issues were addressed with his deletion of the DeLorean section (still deleted) and my rewrite of the other deleted section. His tag issues however are unfounded. It does not read like a fan site, The neutrality issue was already addressed and corrected as advised a while back with the Problems section. The Awards and reviews section are followed by the Problems section, which makes the article neutral. There are no opinions or bias from me in this article but do not want to ruin its tone which is neutral. Thanks. Vegavairbob (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we should be able to resolve this. I am sure Seicer will post on the talk page before making any more major edits. Lets wait and see what he has to say, he may have just made a mistake. --Leivick (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to be repetative, I only reverted his format changes to the article, such as putting the main 1970-1977 section at the end?? with production chart... He put the main section (with the images of the cars) at the end of the article, and the combining of two sections that are unrelated as mentioned. He might be a good editor in eliminating non-free text, but in this case, not style or organization of the article. His deletion of the entire DeLorean factor section was not reverted, and some his minor edits were also not reverted. The entire deleted Showroom stock section I rewrote, removed most of the quotes as per his recommendation in his notes, then I added it back to the article. I might do the same for the DeLorean section as per his instructions, which would take some time as its a large section. In the meantime, it's deleted after several months in the article. By the way, during the review (to remove neutral tag) months ago, nobody mentioned a gross non free use violation of its text.Vegavairbob (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you are one the right track. I realize that this kind of editing isn't always fun, but it is the nature of a collaborative project, sometimes we have to work with others here even if we don't want to. Section that are possible copyright violations have to go, even if they have been around for a while. Not being mentioned during a previous review on a different topic, isn't by definition some sort of tacit approval. Let me know if you need any more help sorting all this out, and thanks for you patience. --Leivick (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Dan-I had a feeling the DeLorean section in that state (all quotes) was no good. Actually I wasn't sure at first about the text violations, but I've been reading more about it. That's why I wasn't upset about his deletion. I was upset about the section order changes, etc. Anyway, he made a list and I did most of it except I have to include more citations and some spelling error corrections.

Thanks for your support. I'm sure your help made a difference and made it go smoother than it could have. Seicer apologised for deleting and changing without warning and I did learn some things like past tense for this article..changed it as advised. Not sure how some things work. He's a user and yet can flag and nominate articles? He actually is not happy I complained to an administrator instead of working with him first. I guess its getting closer to FL now! At least I'm still making all the needed changes.

Please go to my userpage and select working projects..Check out the two articles on working on..tell me what you think. I have to add much text yet. Most of the text was there..only made some edits so far. I did all the userboxes and uploaded all the images on both articles (except later 90's up Impala images) and I did generation organization on both which were a mess and incorrect. Gallery images were there and I relocated the replaced images to the galleries. How many should be in a gallery? They seem too big to me.Vegavairbob (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I will get back to you on the other articles you are working on. It is finals week so I am pretty jammed right now, but I will be graduating on the 14th so my schedule should free up dramatically then. As for the gallery, it looks fine to me. The image size might vary depending on monitor resolution, the pics are a little over an inch across on my screen. The only suggestion I have would be to remove the image of the custom model unless it relates to article content regarding modification which I don't think it does. --Leivick (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Dune (novel)

Good edit here but be warned that there are issues of ownership with this article so just a polite, courtesy notice, to give you a heads up on that. Coldmachine 08:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, let me know if the ownership issues continue, I may be able to sort them out. --Leivick (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I revised Chevrolet Vega lead paragraph. I have some thoughts. The user stated the the Vega and Pinto were among the worst cars of all time. Those are his words (and opinion) and they can't be properly referenced because the Vega didn't make the "Worst cars of all time" list (recent web article) but the Pinto did, but he chose to include both cars at the intro of the Vega article as among the worst. Nice work. I'm not allowed to state my opinion in this article. Why should he? The reference he used was Popular Mechanics.com's "10 cars that hurt GM's reputation" which the Vega was listed. I included the Vega's inclusion as the last (most current) review in the reviews section (check it out) with its reference , so again, I made a corrective edit, not a complete revert.

For El Camino, Bel Air and Impala I downloaded and added a total 46 images to these three articles and corrected generations and infoboxes. I will continue with additional text and larger lead paragraphs on these articles. On the Vega article, I did everything from article list on the talk page including all the proper heading changes. I did much work recently to Chevrolet Bel Air which has a start class rating. Chevrolet Monza, Oldsmobile Starfire, Pontiac Sunbird have C article ratings from before my contributions. Starfire has a start rating. Could these be considered for improved or GA ratings. Please offer your recommendations for working projects listed on my user page. ThanksVegavairbob (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I like what you did with the Vega intro, it is really excellent, although I still think a line about it current reputation would complete it although not using some automotive journalist style hyperbole about "worst car ever," but something regarding its current less than stellar although possibly undeserved reputation. One of the best parts of the article is that it does such a good job describing how the reliability issues came about and why they became part of the the popular understanding of the vehicle. Which is actually something that people who look of up the Chevy Vega here might be looking for. As for the Bel Air, Monza, Starfire and Sunbird articles all are vastly improved. However they are lacking inline citations which would bring them up the quality scale significantly. This is something I would be happy to help with if you just let me know what references you are using. If I remember correctly the Vega article went through a similar state where it was a similar length, but did not contain inline citations. I went ahead and moved the Starfire ranking to C as it was obviously well passed start class. I'm sorry for the late response, I haven't been around the computer lately since the weather out here is so nice and I haven't had any work to procrastinate. --Leivick (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I revised intro of Chevrolet Vega as per your recommendation. Let me know what you think. ThanksVegavairbob (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. I think we should move towards a FA review. --Leivick (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello-I revised the intro for Chevrolet Vega I think its about perfect. Vega's sales peak is mentioned beforehand to keep it balanced. Your edit and closing statement remains un-changed and used your "Detroit automakers" for clarity. I know this is an important area in the car's history. I appreciate your care and patience and am flattered you're concerned with my wishes for the article. Thanks!Vegavairbob (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I added to the body by computer with seven links for the engineering terms. ref. was already in place. Went through all notes. Did I miss anything? Vegavairbob (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The body by computer section is now much clearer. There are only a couple more issues that I can see. First there are a couple of recently added subjective statements. Such as "world class handling" and a reference to a excellent braking system. These are the sort of things that article reviewers would pick out as unencyclopedic. We can say that such and such source called the handling world class, but encyclopedias shouldn't be making judgements on vehicle dynamics. Secondly the section of the Showroom Stock race is pretty unclear. It is hard to tell what is a quote from a magazine and what isn't, or who is being quoted for that matter. If it is all a quote, it is innappropriate for an encyclopedia if parts are quotes than it seems that much of the wording is not encyclopedic. Finally I noticed that you put the body styles with caps. Are these official names or are they just body styles, because the generic use of words like coupe definitely shouldn't be in caps. On the otherhand if they are model names than they should be. Let me know. --Leivick (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Marksdaman, edit warring, hate-talk, etc.

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

Looking into it... --Leivick (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I gave him a final warning, if these issues continue I will certainly block. --Leivick (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

that

segment is straight from the source: "stubborn and Zionist demand" That was what was written in the book, look for yourself. Stubborn is not something that has to be biased, if someone is stubborn that is what he is, if you want to change it it would be like lying, and the people that was stubborn in this case was the zionist movements, zionist menaning those who wanted a jewish homeland. Both these words stubborn and Zionist is from the book. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Simply being in a source does not make the wording neutral. I see the text that you added was plagiarized directly from the book. This is completely unacceptable as this is a blatant copyright violation. In the future, you must use multiple sources and reword text in order to avoid plagiarism. --Leivick (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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

and btw, you also deleted the "and the Israeli controlled Golan heights" implying that southwestern Syria belongs to Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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

You deleted the "and the Israeli controlled Golan heights" ..what do you have to say about this?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your entire edit on sight as an attempt to push a POV. --Leivick (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Vega

Hello- -caps are removed from sedan, coupe and wagon. Notchback Hatchback, Kammback, and Panel Express are official model names and were left capitol. -world class (handling) and excellent (brakes) are removed. I have added and deleted these adjectives once before..wasn't sure if proper but were referenced. -I will re-write the Car and Driver Showroom stock #0 section again, now. (my favorite section in article) Can I have a couple of quotes in it? The quote at the end is a must.Vegavairbob (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Check my talk page. I am being asked for myself to nominate and request a peer review for GA. Can we go for the FL instead and do we have to have a peer review? Vegavairbob (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Quotes are great, but need to be balanced with encyclopedic prose (probably in a ratio of at least 1:3) and also need to be clearly marked as quotes and attributed to their source. We don't need to go through GA, but we do have to go through a peer review before FA as it is a required part of the FA process. Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Peer review for details. --Leivick (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You're going to like what I did with Car and Driver Showroom Stock #0. It belongs in the section at the end anyway instead of buy itself in the middle of article. I revised Hot Rodding section to Hot Rodding and Racing and made sub-sections adding the C&D revised section. I re-wrote parts, shortened it and clearly defined the quotes. Also redid Cosworth section with proper sub-sections and an info-box, I will need a bit more time to add to Cosworth Vega development sub-section.Vegavairbob (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Inline-four engine

Hi. I could use your support on trying to change an article's title. Before deciding, please read an editor's comment (in several parts)in the article's talk page. Inline-four engine It is listed before my comment at end.Vegavairbob (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I need two to Support change. Anyone you know? Thanks.Vegavairbob (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)