User talk:DMacks/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

McNabb Image

The image Image:Absolutlymcnabulous.JPG was not copyrighted I met him at an autograph session. In fact my brother is in the picture next to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockyobody (talk • contribs) 22:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Could you please email WP:OTRS ([email protected]) affirming that you hold rights to the photo? The problem that led to it being flagged and deleted is that the image is cropped from http://assets.philadelphiaeagles.com/uploads/photo/player_thumbs/27863.jpg, and we have to assume that things on other servers aren't usable unless there is an explicit copyright release there. Sorry to make you jump through this hoop, but need to have some permanent "paper trail" of copyright ownership...unfortunately a very few editors aren't above taking images from copyrighted sites and claiming them as their own:( DMacks (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Willing to help at Julie MacDonald?

Hi, DMacks! I was wondering if you could help to calm or resolve a dispute at Julie MacDonald? I've tagged the article {{POV}} and tried to explain why at Talk:Julie MacDonald#Neutrality disputed. The passions on the Talk page seem to be running quite high, so it would be nice to get another set of eyes on the article. You previously briefly edited the article, so I thought you may be interested. All feedback and help is welcome! Thanks! hike395 (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of a page before references regarding said deletion could be deciphered.

DMacks, changing the reason midstride for imposing deletion as attempts at following arbitary guidelines in several different areas are being researched and worked on - then hitting the delete button before the author can fully comply - is simply deplorable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cawfiebean (talk • contribs) 08:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sentence not parse word-soup what-huh? No seriously, the page I assume you are talking about was hopelessly afoul of at least one of the speedy-deletion criteria and didn't appear to be getting any closer to any viable form. You're welcome to recreate a page that satisfies WP:CORP. "Deletion is for now, not forever." DMacks (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Reprotection IIPM Page, Sock Puppets Striking Again

Kindly Reprotect IIPM Page as Vandalism started again.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbangboom (talk • contribs) 05:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone else got it already. It's the same user being a problem again, too, so I gave him a strong warning. DMacks (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Towson High School, Zack Merrick

Hello DMacks, my response is over at Talk:Towson High School – Zedla (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ontario-image-stack.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ontario-image-stack.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 19:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ontario-image-stack2.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ontario-image-stack2.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 19:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Are these images keepers? -Nv8200p talk 19:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think so (per my comments on the IfD nom). I wish there were a place to put meta-content other than WP mainspace:/ DMacks (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks for inform me for this mistake

dear sir, thanks for solve this mistake. i apologize. In Future plz guide me in chemistry editing or general...Thanks.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Soft (talk • contribs) 10:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent registered user blocks

Do you think these are compromised accounts? Something strange going on... Tan | 39 21:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Dirk Valentine is the only "strangely out-of-character" block I've seen recently. What others are you seeing? DMacks (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Bexley Rangers. This one wasn't as surprising, but then the Dirk Valentine edits were remarkably similar - user page blanking, etc. And there's the football connection... Tan | 39 21:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, good point. I just assumed "footy fans getting worked up" as the often do. Could also be socks I guess? This edit makes some case for a real-life connection among those two. DMacks (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Weird, huh? Not sure if I'm motivated enough to do anything about it, tho ;-) Tan | 39 22:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Guess we'll keep watching for a while. Some days the vandals all just happen to like to blank, some days they like to yell PENIS PENIS PENIS, etc. DMacks (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of a page before waiting for the hangon option

You deleted my page before giving me the opportunity to revise the content. I would appreciate feedback as to how to make this page less like a promotion or advertising... That was not its intention and feedback is welcomed. --Orangeisgreen (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which page we're talking about (will dig through the deletion logs later tonight and see what it was), but the WP:SPEEDY criteria are pretty clear about writing neutral articles that make explicit and credible claims of notability. DMacks (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Protecting of a Page

People have been adding false information to my user page. I was just wondering if there is a way to protect it from the false things that people have added on it. Jarrett O'Hearn (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

not cool, man.

i literally was editing the page "Emb" to include news arcticles when you deleted it.

tell me if it's any more worthwhile now. Emb gunther (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Still completely fails website notability and speedy-deletion A7 standards. Feel free to continue the discussion another editor has started on the AfD page. DMacks (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

Just to let you know [1] Nil Einne (talk) 08:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah yeah, thx. Late-night copy'n'paste didn't have benefit of brain-activity during the "'n'" stage:( DMacks (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life

I am leaving you this note because you have edited this article in the past. While vandal-watching today I noticed the removal by CaseyHamMD (talk · contribs) of the entire "Criticism" section. This looked to me like common vandalism, so I reverted it with the rollback tool. Checking the article history, I saw that rollback had reverted a string of 12 edits and, checking them, it was clearly not a case of simple vandalism: on the other hand, the edits showed a pattern of removing properly-sourced criticism and inserting favourable opinions which suggested that CaseyHamMD had a COI and was not editing from a NPOV. He had made one earlier edit of a similar type, which I have also reverted.

He is a new editor, first edit 24 Sep, and his talk page was blank. I have given him a standard welcome paragraph and a note explaining what I have done, outlining relevant WP policies, and inviting him if he wants his changes made to outline them on the article talk page and try to reach consensus.

As I personally know nothing about the subject, I am posting this note to editors who have worked on the article and seem to be still active, so that they can take part in the discussion and/or watch the article.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Jarrett O'Hearn

Seems like you have been keeping up with this mfd, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jarrett O'Hearn. As the nominator I have decided to withdraw the mfd, as the user has cleared the page of the objectable material. So here is the issue, I have no idea how to close an mfd with a withdraw, I was wondering if as an admin you could do it for me. Regards -Marcusmax(speak) 18:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note;

Hi, I saw that you are a regular contributor to wikipedia, and to the "list of search engines" page.

In that case, please see the following entry I made on the talk page:

I could not see the search engine VADLO page in wikipedia articles. While I suggest that some search engine veteran creates it (I have no idea how to create a page), I strongly suggest adding this wonderful search engine, which is rapidly growing in popularity, be added to the list of major search engines. Regisbates (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_search_engines"

Regisbates (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ref desk

Do you have anything further to add to this question? I feel like what you said before was moving me towards the answer I need, but input from another user seems to contradict this. ike9898 (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

haha!

[2] Thanks for the chuckle! Cheers! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

J.delanoy^gabs_adds has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Page-deletion

Why did you delete my page? T-T AWJ PLATINUM PR IS AN OFFICIAL COMPANY! IT IS TOO VIABLE >.< AHH WHATEVER I WILL MAKE SOMETHING BETTER THAN WIKIPEDIA!!!!

-anonymous-

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilyboomood (talk • contribs) 04:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you have a look

Hi I am not even sure I am doing this in the correct area so if I am not please bear with me. You deleted a page I was placeing for my company Caffeine Nights Publishing as blatant advertising. I think my original effort may have been naïve but they were in no way meant to have been 'Blatant Advertising' My last attempt I felt was well within the guidlines set by Wikipedia and I have seen similar pages. I only mentioned the start date of the company and the fact that it uses environmentally an friendly approach to publishing. There was no mention of any of the title published or links to website, so I am confused. What can I do to ensure I have a page on Wikipedia for my company?

Kind regards,

Darren

Hi you just deleted an article 22:43 . . DMacks (Talk | contribs) deleted "Alreadyeskimo" (A7 (group): No indication that the article meets inclusion guidelines) could you have a look at the page of the creator of this article User:AlreadyEskimo it is an exact copy of the article and editor is using his page to promote their band thanks. BigDunc^Talk 22:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! I just warned him, will speedy it if it's still a problem in a few hr. Likewise with User:Darkninjakane (username matches one of the band's members). DMacks (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

And so was that one thanks. BigDunc^Talk 22:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The user page User:AlreadyEskimo has been recreated. BigDunc^Talk 20:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I spotted another Abid Hassan Minto and User:Saleha M the article is not patrolled yet as I am not sure about it checking it out. Is there a tag for deleting user pages that I could place like ones used on articles thanks for your help. BigDunc^Talk 21:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If a page really meets WP:SPAM or is a WP:SPA/WP_COI trying an end-run around mainspace notability by putting it as userpage (i.e., WP-is-not-your-webhost), {{db-spam}} still works. DMacks (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats great thanks for your help. BigDunc^Talk 21:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) You're welcome! Could also slap a {{userpage}} on it and complain on user's talk-page. That often triggers a good-faith editor to improve it (or blank it if it's a mainspace clone) or a bad-faith editor to devolve into a more blatant vandal or other block candidate:) I gotta run, no time to look at those specific ones now. DMacks (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of page Adam Crews

You obviously deleted this out of blatant bias. Everyone knows that the only people who go to Brown are people who get rejected from good Ivy League schools. You are jealous of Adam because he accomplished at age 12 something you never could. —Preceding unsigned comment added by STLisbetterthanChicago (talk • contribs) 08:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I deleted it because the claims do sound quite extraordinary, which would potentially make this person notable, however when I went to read the cites, they were all bogus...don't mention him, are dead links, or even name entirely different people in the roles claimed for the subject of this article. DMacks (talk) 08:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The AfD and your speedy deletion overlapped, sorry, I was having connection problems and it took me too long to finish the filing. Euryalus (talk) 09:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Just deleted literally 100 headers on your UserPage and TalkPage all saying 'I love penis' which was written by an IP. If I were you, I'd request page protection at WP:RPP. No offense intended, I'm just thinking of you. TopGearFreak ^Talk 19:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching it and reheterosexualizing! DMacks (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of I Can't Believe It's Yogurt!

I have nominated I Can't Believe It's Yogurt!, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Can't Believe It's Yogurt!. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Henry Ford

Thank you - I was just about to ask that someone SP the page for a least a few hours. Excellent timing. -- MarcoTolo (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. DMacks (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Diimine

Lightning fast- cheers. Freestyle-69 (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Protect the IIPM Page....SOCK Puppets in large number Striking one by one.....Stop Vandalism

Dear Administrator,

Please Protect the IIPM Page as SOCK Puppets in large number Striking one by one.....Stop Vandalism. Please Protect the page immediately

Regards BIGBANGBOOM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbangboom (talk • contribs) 08:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Rapid blocks

Hi there; how did you beat me to those last two vandal blocks? I was right there and you were first both times! Do you have some software that I should be using? Cheers. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Just quick mouse-fingers I guess:) Popups make it easy to check contribs and talk-page history right from the WP:AIV entry. At the same time, I lost the race to block 70.168.8.190. DMacks (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Remember User:Slemcal1 (talk) who's you blocked because he created this sock -User:Slemcal (talk), now he once again created a new account User:Samsterzai (talk). Thank you! Wynchard Bloom (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Great:/ I'll watch the article and indef that account on its next attempt. DMacks (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Aw hell, why wait? DMacks (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I Hope so. You must really protect indefenitely this article so that he can't edit the article no more or hardblocked him. Thats a good idea. Wynchard Bloom ^{contact me}_{My work} 10:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey could you do me a quick favor

i created the article on Quesianism which you deleted.... I'm not going to insist that you un delete the article or whatever I'll leave that up to your discretion but can you please e mail me a copy of the article at [email protected]? thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatles111 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Enable Wikipedia email (in your preferences...User Profile) and I'll send it that way. DMacks (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

ok I think I did it right.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatles111 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Sent. DMacks (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Ted Alvy

The information about COSMOS TOPPER has been on the Web since 1995 and has been on Wikipedia entry KPPC as External links An article about KPPC by former KPPC disc jockey Ted Alvy.

October 2008 saw the debut of TEDALVY DOT COM, so I added Ted Alvy (aka Cosmos Topper) to KPPC entry (the deejay names had been left off Wikipedia entry KPPC.

Don Barrett is a source on his website LARadio dot com and in his book Los Angeles Radio People Vol. 2.

Another source is an Interview of deejay Ted Alvy by drummer Alex Cline for The U.C.LA. Center For Oral History Research with hardbound copies at the U.C.L.A. Library and U.C. Berkeley Library]

KPPC (defunct) Les Carter , novelty music historian Dr. Demento , Ted Alvy (aka "Cosmos Topper "), Elliot Mintz (whose late-night Sunday show played ... 5 KB (795 words) - 16:43, 21 November 2008

Peace, Ted Alvy Tedalvy (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That's all interesting, but why are you telling me this? DMacks (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Ted Alvy

>>>That's all interesting, but why are you telling me this? DMacks (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DMacks"<<<

Speedy deletion of Ted Alvy

You left the following:

04:41, 21 November 2008 DMacks (Talk | contribs) deleted "Ted Alvy" ‎ (A7 (bio): No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion

WIKI Will Not allow Access to add hangon tag, as another editor wrote me: I suggest you contest the deletion by added the hangon tag to the article.

My previous post Talk:Ted Alvy has the sources.

This is the first time I have added anything to WIKI. Can you help? Thanks. Peace, Ted Alvy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedalvy (talk • contribs) 21:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Ted Alvy mea culpa

>>>04:41, 21 November 2008 DMacks (Talk | contribs) deleted "Ted Alvy" (A7 (bio): No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion<<<

Mea Culpa: I forgot the four tildes on my previous post, so maybe my post will go unread. I keep making rookie mistakes, as this week is the first time I tried to make additions to Wikipedia (a high value information source I have used for many years).

BTW. here is another source: rocksbackpages.com/writer.html?WriterID=alvy

AUDIO: The Grateful Dead (and the New Riders), PART 1 (Ted Alvy, KPPC-FM 106.7 Pasadena, 27 December 1970) Jerry Garcia and Bob Weir from the Dead, plus New Riders David Nelson and Marmaduke, talk about Workingman's Dead and the birth of the New Riders of the Purple Sage, while DJ Ted Alvy spins tunes and tries to keep order. Originally broadcast on KPPC-FM Pasadena in December 1970

AUDIO: The Grateful Dead (and the New Riders), PART 2 (Ted Alvy, KPPC-FM 106.7 Pasadena, 27 December 1970)...in which Garcia, Weir, David Nelson and Marmaduke break out the guitars and have themselves an impromptu hootenanny hosted by DJ Ted Alvy, playing some of your country-gospel favourites amidst much studio chaos. Originally broadcast on KPPC-FM Pasadena in December 1970.

AUDIO: Pink Floyd's Nick Mason and Rick Wright (Ted Alvy, KPPC-FM 106.7 Pasadena, 10 October 1971) A splendid radio interview with Messrs. Mason and Wright in which they talk to DJ Ted Alvy about Meddle, the Zabriskie Point soundtrack, their quadraphonic p.a. system, and playing live. Originally broadcast on KPPC-FM Pasadena in October 1971.

>>>That's all interesting, but why are you telling me this? DMacks (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DMacks"<<<

Speedy deletion of Ted Alvy

You left the following:

04:41, 21 November 2008 DMacks (Talk | contribs) deleted "Ted Alvy" (A7 (bio): No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion

WIKI Will Not allow Access to add hangon tag, as another editor wrote me: I suggest you contest the deletion by added the hangon tag to the article.

My previous post Talk:Ted Alvy has the sources.

This is the first time I have added anything to WIKI. Can you help? Thanks. Peace, Ted Alvy Tedalvy (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries about being new...we all were once:) Regarding the Ted Alvy article, a person needs to be WP:NOTABLE (more specific guidelines are WP:BIO). It's not enough that someone exists/existed, but needs to have done something important enough in his/her field to have had a lasting impact or be known outside of just his/her niche in the field. Media personalities are especially confusing for new Wikipedia editors because they're "known by" lots of people, but unless they are actually notable for being more than "just another voice on the radio", they're not important enough to merit an article. You might have a case for Ted Alvy regarding the clandestine programming and other controversies, provided such events were noted in mainstream media or other "outside" reliable sources. OTOH, be very careful to avoid what I suspect would be (based on your username) an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. DMacks (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

DMacks: Thank You for Your Time. You have been very helpful. Peace, Ted Alvy Tedalvy (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

why

exactly why did you leave a message on my talk? what edit of mine did you revert that required messaging me? none, correct? 24.119.52.86 (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Which msg are you talking about? DMacks (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

hm, i apparently was confused - i got my talk page and someone else's confused - similar IPs. sorry for the confusion! haha. apparently the person whos talk i was looking at was continually rickrolling the yttrium page, which merited multiple warnings, while i only made one edit to it and what was reverted - i couldn't understand why i received three warnings for it, which makes sense now because i didn't. haha. 24.119.52.86 (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

heh okay:) DMacks (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:DonGui

I tagged the page for deletion thinking it was a regular Wiki article, but when I saw "User talk" on it, I noticed that I made an oversight. I wasn't sure whether or not to remove the template because it had a threat. But at least we now know that DonGui is a suspected sock. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries. It's a mess in that part of wiki-userland! DMacks (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

TA Sciences

Is there any way I could look at the material deleted at TA Sciences? While the pre-existing article may not have properly explained the notability of the company, I'm reasonably sure it's a notable subject and that an encyclopedic article about it can in fact be written. Would it be acceptable to restore the deleted material to my userspace, even though I'm not the original author? SierraSciSPA (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Restored to User:SierraSciSPA/TA Sciences. DMacks (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Syndney Opera House

Hey, what warnings would you think are appropriate at this point for the IP? The trouble is that the edits when treated individually cannot be considered vandalism, they appear to be constructive, but overall they are making a change to the whole tone of the article that certainly merits discussion. They cannot simply be reverted for vandalism though? And non use of edit summaries doesn't merit escalating warnings. Mfield (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a simple content dispute (changing the tone of the article is something that happens all the time, for better or worse). Gowever, if the change-of-tone is (as the talk-page suggests) something akin to whitewashing (even if not to the level that word suggests), it sounds like IP is removing cited content that he doesn't agree with. Repeated removal of cited content is an escalatable warning. Having a track record of discussion on the talk-page about what direction the article should go is good: it lays the foundation for escalating warnings for editting against consensus. If the IP is simply going overboard focusing on one issue, you (the plural "you", discussing it on the talkpage) could come to a consensus about how much weight to give to various topics vs WP:UNDUE, and again edit-warring against consensus is escalatable. DMacks (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have suggested escalating content deletion warnings to be the preferred approach on the talk page. Mfield (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Dxm.png

Image:Dxm.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Dextromethorphan transparant.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Dextromethorphan transparant.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lvm.png is now available as Commons:Image:Levomethorphan.png. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

hello

was just wondering, why can't i edit my school's Trivia portion? they are after-all, facts. Pinky7530 (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Pinky 12/03/08

They are far off our guidelines for content with respect to notability. People don't get listed unless they are clearly important enough to have their own page. DMacks (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

... Mike Crowl is our school's principal. I'm pretty sure that that's okay. Pinky7530 (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Pinky 12/03/08

The it's not Trivia is it? And he is already listed as such in the infobox top-right. And he would deserve some measure of respect, rather than being described as if a fanclub. But I digress...actually school principals are not notable in the grand scheme of life and (more importantly) Wikipedia. WP is a factual encyclopedia, not a place to play around. DMacks (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

how is mentioning his name a sign of disrespect? i mentioned that conroe high is the home of mike crowl. which is true seeing he is the principal. he enjoys it when we proclaim his name with exclamation marks. you don't attend our school, you would not know. so it would be okay if i took off the band thing?

No, it's simply not appropriate content. Again, this is an encyclopedia, and all content needs to reflect that in writing style. Some would even say that all Trivia sections should be scrapped...thinking is that if something isn't important enough to write about with context explaining why it matters, then it doesn't, and WP is not for every piece of fact in the world. DMacks (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

and even though "some" argues about the Trivia portion, it is not scrapped yet, and until so, should trivial facts not be able to be added? and you point out that this is an encyclopedia. their purpose is to help present facts about certain subjects when it is searched. so should we not make it (the page) present as many fact as possible? Pinky7530 (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Pinky 12/03/08

Absolutely not. Again WP is not for every piece of fact in the world but only for things that are verifiably notable, written in objective tone. "not a complete exposition of all possible details" is what the content guidelines say. Also, be careful of slippery-slope WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The principal isn't Trivia; how her likes to be called is and isn't worthy content for an encyclopedia. DMacks (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

objective tone. then can the exclamation be used inside a quotations? listing one more trivial fact would not be considered "a complete exposition of all possible details" but only a pebble down that road. and speaking of respect, you called "Mike" Crowl a her. way. to. fail. Pinky7530 (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Pinky 12/03/08

Sure! If you are talking about how he likes to be called rather than just using some unexplained expression/style, that is trivial and useless information, but it is objective and factual content. All you need is some reliable source supporting your claim. DMacks (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

seeing how i am a student of his, would i be considered a primary source and thus reliable as you said or again, does this have to make prime time news. "Mike Crowl- principal loves to be called "Mike Crowl!!""? also, sounds like you're getting mad =] 74.193.3.21 (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Pinky 12/04/08

WP:BLP and WP:RS. DMacks (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

holy bajebus. if it's so trivial, wouldn't a primary source be enough. or better yet, i could get a petition of a couple dozens of students to prove its credibility. your wiki did not specify as how to handle that.74.193.3.21 (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Pinky 12/04/08

If it's so trivial then it doesn't belong at all. If it's so trivial that "you gotta be here to understand" or other local-lore, then it doesn't belong. WP:RS actually is quite clear about what's a viable source, and WP:BLP is quite clear that material about people needs to be carefully cited. "He likes to be called Mike Crowl!!!" is certainly a neutrally-written factual statement, but again, per WP:BLP, material like that needs to be sourced carefully. Per WP:V, material that isn't sourced is liable to be removed if editors find it objectionable and sourced aren't added, and WP:RS is quite clear about what constitutes reliable sources. One of the weird concepts on WP is that "verifiability is more important than truth", so even if "everyone knows something", it's not viable content unless there's a reliable source that actually says it. DMacks (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

alrighty then, i will proceed to write a book that will publish this known fact and make mike crowl a dominant figure in the media. then i'll come back to edit =] thank you for the wonderful conversation filled with hilarity.Pinky7530 (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Pinky 12/05/08

Thanks for your revert

In the article Party reverted vandalism to wrong version.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! OTOH, I didn't go deep enough even:/ DMacks (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the semi-protection

Greetings, DMacks. The semi-protection you applied recently to Solar energy has made a major difference in maintaining the article's integrity. The reduced need for cleanup chores is a blessing to me (& others, I'm sure). I wonder if you could take a look at the histories of a few other articles that are likewise perennial targets for vandalism? If you agree that they are hard hit, could you please give similar long-term semi-protection? The three worst on my list at the moment are Nikola Tesla, Physical exercise, and Empire State Building. For some reason these are magnets for vandalism, and it is hard keeping up with reversions and issuance of warnings. Thanks in advance for your help. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could help! Will look at those others tomorrow...need to sleep now. DMacks (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sweet dreams! Hertz1888 (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Y Done

• Nikola Tesla 6 months
• Physical exercise 1 week
• Empire State Building 3 months

Solar energy, Tesla, and Empire State Building are likely popular with school-kids, and therefore easy targets for their goofing aroundtest edits. It's a pattern I see a lot in the science articles too. I don't know what's up with physical exercise, but that one looks like just a recent bunch of nonsense rather than an ongoing problem interfering with article developement, so I didn't go long-term on it. As always, if the problems reappear when protection expires, we can go again. DMacks (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear DMacks,

Thank you very much for your help in dealing with the vandalism which was occurring on my user and talk pages. It's been a bit of a nightmare recently and a relief to have it sorted. You help is much appreciated. All the best. Marek.69 ^talk 22:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Chinatravel spam

I think it's a sock of Chinatravelexpert (talk · contribs). Michellecrisp (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Almost certainly (WP:DUCK at least). That's why I added the sock-tag. But if they're just doing hit'n'run, please either file a check-user (might find an IP to block the whole sock-drawer) or an XLinkBot request for nuking URLs to that domain. DMacks (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha! We both tagged at the same time! DMacks (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

yeah I previously reported chinatravel as spam and I thought the link would be blocked. this spammer is very persistent and has also appeared as anon IPs. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

XLinkBot is already tracking "\bchinatravel\.com\b" and has reverted several in the past few days, but there are still others (I just reverted 3, looks like a whole drawer of socks), I assume added before XLinkBot kicked in. Will check back in a day or two, if they're still not being reverted, hard blacklist time. DMacks (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

XLinkBot is being lossy here...will escalate to blacklist shortly. DMacks (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#chinatravel.com. DMacks (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability

I refer you to our verifiability content policy, which clearly states, in the very first sentence "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true" (emphasis mine). There's a good reason for this, anyone can claim that a private letter makes a statement, but any reader should be able to verify that claim. I understand that material need not necessarily be published in order to be verifiable, but it's my understanding that Wikipedia's verifiability policy demands that any material cited is a publicly available and published reliable source. I think the relevance of publication is that published materials are likely to have been better fact checked and authenticated. Of course I could have missed an important caveat with regards to this. Do you think you could point out to me where we allow unpublished but verifiable material? Cheers. Alun (talk) 12:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Per that same WP:V: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves," so "Perutz said something" could be cited to a specific letter where Perutz says it, assuming such a letter exists. enough information is given about these letters to track them down by contacting the J. Craig Venter Institute to verify their contents. I haven't seen a policy that sources have to be publicly or easily available, and lots of sources aren't (journals require expensive subscriptions or other access fees, out-of-print/rare books, etc.), only that cites are specific enough to find them vs WP:WEASELy "in some letters". DMacks (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see. Thanks. Alun (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello there, I live in the US, more specifically, Florida. DMacks, Please do not ban IP # 68.225.127.60, I love Wikipedia, exept the part that people can edit it, i am currently tracking them. DMacks, can you make editing for only users. And if they vandilize too much, ban the account. Thank You, --Driva (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

We usually set IP blocks to block only anonymous edits. Logged-in accounts are usually exempt from simply IP blocks unless we find further evidence that logged-in editors from it are also problematic (i.e., minimum block necessary to solve the problem vs collateral damage). DMacks (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I see, I was getting about 20 last warnings, yet it it had the [edit] link there. Why? --Driva (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Another "least damage" default is that a user's own talk-page is exempt from edit-block, allowing the user to explain his actions or be otherwise involved in discussions about the block itself. If a user continues to be disruptive even in that last-chance venue, then his own talk-page is locked separately. DMacks (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Then what? Driva (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If a user gets blocked (modulo his own talk-page) and then misuses his own talk-page, he gets blocked from editing that either. DMacks (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What about vandalizing multiple times? Driva (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What about vandalizing what multiple times? DMacks (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A page like George Washington. Driva (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As for all cases of simple vandalism, series of escalating-severity warnings on user talkpage, then blocked if the problem continues. DMacks (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And if it persists? Driva (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't. As I said "blocked if the problem continues". DMacks (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Wow, look how many indentations there are. Driva (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

Hi, FYI: I re-created a bad article by making a redirect from Elektra Records Company v. Gem Electronic Distributors, Inc., which you previously had deleted as a copyvio, to a new stub. Ironically, since the case is about copyright infringement! LOL. Bearian (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha! Okay, sounds good:) DMacks (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Watch out

If you see some one vandalizing a page, like this, "In 1983, he f****** died." Please tell DMacks, I have seen these people before on other sites, so wacth out for them. Driva (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

...for this. Hopeless is right. Andrea (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Chemical formula

first -i was offended, believe me that I know how to “read molecular formulas”.
second - to the last change in the molecular formula of sodium percarbonate I agree - but the previous chemical/molecular formula, 2Na₂CO₃·3H₂O₂, was an erroneous one (or at least misleading): as you wrote, "xABC" means "x of the ABC molecules" and because “water” (actually H₂O₂ ) of crystallization is inseparable part of the formula the molecular formula 2Na₂CO₃·3H₂O₂ implies that there are 4(=2*2) sodium ions per 6(=2*3)H₂O₂, were truly there are only 4 sodium ions every 3H₂O₂ (or 2Na : 1.5H₂O₂) this fact is reflected only in the chemical formula [Na₂CO₃]₂·3(H₂O₂) or Na₂CO₃·1.5H₂O₂ but not in 2Na₂CO₃·3H₂O₂
third - excuse me for my English, I'm not native English speaker. Avi saig (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if you were offended...was not my intent, and I can now see how it could be read as offensive tone. The problem is that square-bracket notation [Na₂CO₃]₂ implies that there are two sodium-carbonates as individual units within a discrete larger molecule, or (worse) there is "a two sodium-carbonate unit" within the molecule. Neither one of those interpretations is really correct though. As far as I can see, it is mostly ionic and a crystal lattice without independent "2:3 complex clusters". If there were, it would be incorrect to use 1/1.5 notation. Regardless of how it is, the same arrangement applies to both the sodium-carbonate and the hydrogen-peroxide parts. Therefore, it's misleading to use bracket/subscript for one and prefix-number for the other. Finally, some of the cited refs do use the 2/3 prefix numbers we had (therefore that notation is verifiably correct and none of them use the square-brackets, therefore it would be incorrect to decide it's better. DMacks (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right regarding the square-bracket notation.
I looked it up and it seems that the solution to a non-misleading formula is either use notation with 1.5 as in most references ,or, if you like integers in molecular formula (after all it represent atoms which can not be divided, not just mols), you may use rounded brackets like in Calcium Sulphate Hemihydrate
I still think that the use of 2/3 prefix numbers is wrong, even though some (one?) people used it.( Verifiability is not truth, you know)
Avi saig (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Time off to regenerate

{{wikibreak}}

I'm back, much relaxed. Will take me a day or two to catch up, so I still may not respond promptly to Wikipedia discussions... DMacks (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

who's life....

i just cannot imagine a scenario where one might actually confuse a broadway theatre play with a sketch television show. however, in the rare case that might happen, a quick search would no doubt direct the reader to the correct article. --emerson7 18:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

copied and responded on Talk:Whose Life Is It Anyway? to avoid further fragmentation of discussion. DMacks (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Bloodrayne edits

The same anon IP is editing the Bloodryan articles again with the same text as before. Can the pages be protected once again. There is no wrath like fanboi wrath I guess. The pages are BloodRayne (series), BloodRayne 2‎, and BloodRayne‎. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webwarlock (talk • contribs)

User blocked. If it pops up again, will pull out the protection hammer (I like letting users get themselves long blocks at first:). DMacks (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

indef-protected...no reason to waste more time here. DMacks (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll remember to sign this one. ;) Web Warlock (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OH MY GOD

Not blocked from editing Wikipedia! Gasp! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.91.17 (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Internet Relay Chat bot

I thought about removing the See Also section myself, but I'm not too sure if that would be best in this article. I moved the list of bots from what had been a "list of popular bots" to See Also to help neaten things up a bit before working on the navboxes. It seems like Internet Relay Chat bot being a hub/portal type article for the subject of IRC bots should have a more prominent section of popular bots other than the navbox but I'm just not sure how to go about it. Got any ideas? Tothwolf (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Propylhexedrine only remotely similar to methamphetamine

It is only a remote similarity, as the aryl group is replaced by a cycloalkyl group. I think this is tenable. A similarity which would be less remotely would be a substituent on the aryl. In this sense... what is the problem? Why did you revert? It is not even aromatic or planar any more but a chair configuration. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Besides the crap was used as an anorectic in Germany in the old days: Eventin - Minden (25mg). It had rather mild central stimulating effects, main effects were sweating, lump in the stomach (anorectic!), jittery and clammy hands. So also pharmacologically only remotely related to amphetamines. Available OTC, only used by some fatsos to lose weight, ah yes and by some crazy kids who were desperate to try everything. But it was one of the worse OTC pills, really unpleasant. (Before the Yankees came and would make such crap abuse a fashion or even hysteria, and after that make forbidding all such crap a hysteria because the weaklings would get hooked on it, probably because of their calvinist morale or something.) 70.137.173.82 (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

So it's your observation that cyclohexyl-vs-phenyl is a dominant difference? Or there are references to support that this structural difference causes entirely different effects? The two compounds have some similar effects and are used in place of each other in certain cases. Therefore, it seems inappropriate to emphasize how different the structures are without citing that emphasis. A chair-cyclohexane is still pretty flat (look at steroid structures for some dramatic examples), extending away from the equatorial substituent. From a simple steric-bulk perspective, the A-values of phenyl and cyclohexyl are quite similar (2.2 and 2.8, respectively).DMacks (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Seemingly aryl vs cycloalkyl makes a huge difference. The 25mg tablets described above were really only mildly centrally stimulating and decidedly "unpleasant" and OTC, with peripheral effects dominating over central stimulation. Much like ephedrine but with more unpleasant restlessness, anxiety, sweating, teeth clenching. The centrally stimulating effect felt more like too much caffeine. The pharmacological difference is so striking that even the DEA thinks the stuff has no value as a drug of abuse. Thats why they allow it to be put in the inhalers. Only a few kids think the stuff is abusable, but they would also huff paint thinner. The receptors think it is a huge difference... So I like to emphasize the difference, such that nobody has false hopes. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Such that nobody with false hopes feels compelled to eat the shitty inhalers... 70.137.173.82 (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

From the chemical standpoint, even if mechanistically the cyclohexyl doesn't differ so much from the phenyl, they behave much different due to the resonance effects of the distributed electron cloud in the aromatic system, e.g. the first substituent directs further attacks into the 3 and 4 positions under some circumstances. Seemingly analog to harmonics 2*f and 3*f in a circular (toroid) probability wave model. (dividing the circle into 2 half circles or 3 thirds) So this creates reactive points in the phenyl, which are not present in a cycloalkyl, because it has no smeared out pi-electron probability densities and no such standing wave phenomena. Insofar the interaction with 3,4 substituted neurotransmitters and their systems may be completely different. (e.g. dopamine) So I would call the analogy superficial and spurious, only limited to the classical mechanistic model, therefore remote. Thats why I am talking about remote similarity. Please correct me, of course you are the chemist and I am only an old electrician. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As you are teaching chem: Is my understanding of the decomposition of the aromatic electron densities into two counterrotating probability waves, interfering with each other, in a toroid potential tunnel (with 6 bumps) correct? Is the understanding of the direction of electron donating or withdrawing substituents on second and third substituents as a standing wave phenomenon of this interference correct? Is it feasible to think of spatial harmonics (in the sense of 3-d fourier transform) in a polar coordinate representation of the eigenvalue decomposition of the differential equation solution? Or my imagination going wild? 70.137.173.82 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thinking of toroid coordinates, where the solution would be periodic and lead itself to fourier series representation. (in the two angle coordinates) 70.137.173.82 (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 70.137.173.82 (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism by 218.248.68.198 to my user page and its talk page! Devrit 22:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A centralised discussion which may interest you

Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

UNPROTECT PANICCIE'S TALK PAGE RIGHT NOW!!!

I MEAN IT!!! AND THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Passsssssss (talk • contribs) 15:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No. File WP:RFPP. DMacks (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I <3 CANDY

Do you like candy? If so, what is your favorite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss Hollister (talk • contribs) 06:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yum! Anything without nuts...I'm constantly told I'm already nuts enough:) DMacks (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Acyl chloride

Heya Dmacks

I've made some changes to this article... any comments? Anything else to improve on? Thanks. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Got stuck under an avalanche of exams...will look tomorrow. DMacks (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

Hi DMacks. Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page :) Marek.69 ^talk 03:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! DMacks (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Weird?

Actually, the claims of these edits to “Goat” (which were not mine) are correct. You are of course correct that sourcing is needed. —SlamDiego_←T 23:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool! It did sound plausible, but I removed it (rather than leaving {{cn}}) due to the constant and sometimes sneaking insertion of goat-sex content in various related articles. Would be great to get actual viable content to ward off the other questionable-at-best material on the topic:) DMacks (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

can you change the phthalo page back

the link comes from a band we played with, you click our name and it goes to some label that has nothing to do with it. so your page is inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K3ynan (talk • contribs) 05:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If your band is not "notable" per the WP:BAND standard, it does not merit a page on Wikipedia. I'm sorry you followed a link from somewhere else and found a page about something else with the same name but not what you were expecting, but our role here isn't to document every possible (even non-notable) meaning of a term. Make some good music, get a record deal, become notable, and we'd love to have a page about your band. DMacks (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If the problem is "link goes somewhere you don't expect", the obvious solution is "change the link and write a better page if it doesn't exist", not "destroy the existing page on the same-name-different-topic". I have adjusted the link in Zechs Marquise (band) to point to a more appropriate place for you to have a page about this topic. Note that unless you meet the WP:BAND standard, I can prety much guarantee your page will be deleted within a few hours at most, wherever you write it. DMacks (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

if it wasn't notable why was it up on their page, without us knowing about it I'm trying to make the page correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K3ynan (talk • contribs) 06:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe whoever added the link didn't know the page was about something else? Unfortunately, lots of people think that a link to a term gives one particular meaning of that term (what they mean it to mean), not bothering to see if that is indeed true. "All but one of those ideas" will obviously be somewhere else instead. That's why WP has the whole concept of disambiguation: each of many meanings of the same term gets its own page. As I said, the link you followed now points to a better place to create this page so nobody will mistakenly get to the record-label meaning of Phthalo by mistake ever again there. DMacks (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Block template

Hello DMacks. At User talk:64.113.184.21, I think you blocked for one year, but the template says indefinite. How about a {{uw-block2}} with appropriate parameters? EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops yeah, good catch. Off-by-one error:) DMacks (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

HI

Hi, i just change taipei article conutry to ROC, the ROC government is control the taiwan island, that is just says the fact, so it is not Vandalism, no need to push your politics everywhere.thanks.

No, you were blocked for repeatedly making things bold that shouldn't be and for repeatedly mis-using infobox templates, and for removing links and factual discussion about various sites. Only secondarily were you blocked for edit-warring against consensus (including some talk-page and some content that had specific comments to discuss on talk-page before changing). However, even simple persistent edit-warring against apparent consensus is blockable. DMacks (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The work of deleting IP vandalism on chem element pages

Since you're involved, I wonder if you'd like to comment on this discussion on semi-protection for element articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements Thanks! SBHarris 00:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your decline reason...

...here. I normally wouldn't have a problem with someone leaving an additional, clarifying unblock decline in light of an edit conflict, but don't you think you are just stoking the fires here just a bit too much? A polite "no thanks" probably would have a better effect than pepetuating the evolution/creationism debate, n'est ce pas? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

here? I kept debating whether to cut'n'paste after we edit-conflicted there, but otherwise it felt like "stop vandalizing" "I'm not" "you're blocked for vandalizing" "unblock me I'm not vandalizing" "yes you are". Thought it needed a real mention of why his content is so problematic in this context, and why his edit-warring behavior is itself also a problem. DMacks (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Those Spring Branch ISD schools are all notable

Hi! I notice you did an AFD on those Spring Branch ISD schools.

Have you read this? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memorial Drive Elementary School

See, all of those schools won the National Blue Ribbon Award. This is their claim for notability. This caused the schools to survive AFD before. You said "Merger with the article Spring Branch ISD mentioned months ago, ignored." - No, it was proposed, and it failed as you can see in this AFD. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Since Juwiki didn't sign his post, I thought you created the AFD. I'll post this on his talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering:) Nonetheless, I did respond on the AfD. I wasn't that sad that WP:SCHOOL didn't gain consensus as it was, but we need somewhere written what the current consensus is (at least based on AfD precedent that isn't just based on other AfD precedent) for school notability. DMacks (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Kudos

Marvelous response wrt the questions of liberty and price at RD Science. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

invitation

You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Historic Sites ! :) doncram (talk) 06:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

World Financial Group

why do you keep editing the information about World Financial Group to some MLM scam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.58.123 (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Because we have cited refs supporting that it is. See Wikipedia verifiability policy. DMacks (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The school project

I'm not sure User:Vote Cthulhu is as open to help and collaboration as it perhaps first appeared. Erasing all suggestions from the talk page without comment or apparent heed of them does not make others more inclined to try again to help. Aleta ^Sing 03:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

These always start out with the best of intentions too:( And t hen it devolves into stuff like this. DMacks (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Changes

Thanks DMacks, I will be more careful. I'm new to editing articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MonkeyMountain10 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hope you approve of my additions this time ;) Sorry about the changes before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MonkeyMountain10 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks much better. Welcome to Wikipedia--great to have new collaborative editors! DMacks (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Free-zine

howdy DMacks - thanks for your input on the Free-zine page. Just to let you know that I have permission from the author of the source material to use it. I am following the Wikipedia channels to change the status of the page, but wanted to drop you a line as well in the hope it might expedite matters.

Thanks!

Vanclark (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing anyone can do until the original article(s) clearly state that they are GFDL or a similar "reusable" license or the author mails wikipedia to release copyrights appropriately. But more pragmatically, why are you so eager to post the same content from a single source here? If it's really a WP:NOTABLE topic, there are surely many sources you can use and can write a coherent article in your own words bringing it all together. DMacks (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice - I will get the author to email wikipedia. Interestingly, and the reason I wanted to post this on Wikipedia (and have the author's permission to do so :) is that there is not a heap of information on this topic, and we are really defining a category here, which I think is pretty exciting.

Vanclark (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely sounds exciting. Careful though...Wikipedia is for documenting what is already known and notable per other secondary sources. Make sure you aren't thinking WP is the vehicle to define or bring a neologism or original idea into the public light. DMacks (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Bot 1, Physchim 0

PC puts on Elmer Fudd accent: Ah'll get that bot! Ah tell ya', Ah'll get that bot!

Cheers for sorting it out! Physchim62 (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Grand Central Station dab

Hello. I agree that redirects should normally be avoided on dab pages, and I almost wrote the first line exactly as you did, but I noticed MOS:DAB#Linking to a primary topic, especially the Danzig example. Let me know what you think. (P.S. the 'see also' is a good idea.) Station1 (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ooh yeah, that's a good analogy! This whole Terminal/Station terminology for Grand Central is so confusing, with consensus to use proper rather than probably most common name. Ah well. DMacks (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hinduism and science

An article that you have been involved in editing, Hinduism and science, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduism and science. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. andy (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Christianity in Haiti

An article that you have been involved in editing, Christianity in Haiti, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christianity in Haiti. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. andy (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Protection of New York

Hi, DMacks. Could I persuade you to unprotect New York? It's been four months, and I think that's long enough to prevent new users from editing a such an important article. Thanks! Powers ^T 19:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Will keep an eye on it and see how long it lasts. DMacks (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, a little late. I am frankly stunned at how quickly vandalism was attracted to this article after unprotecting. I may have been too hasty in recommending unprotection, although at this time I think it's manageable. Powers ^T 13:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Civility Warning??

I do trust that you will make the same warning to andy who has repeatedly impuned me personally by suggesting that I am not what I say that I am and that the many editors who have either edited the articles that he dislikes or who have argued against their deletion simply do not know what they are talking about. Otherwise you must admit to sharing his bias.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I call it as I see it based on my observations of your behavior other than in relation to simply editing articles. I will warn anyone who spends most of the time complaining about people and trumpeting some sort of perceived persecution rather than working on the articles' content, focus, coherence, notability, etc. DMacks (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Who is this?

Is this... Devyn. Remember creating the article Lindsey Sprague in US History when she was the teacher intern? This has to be someone from Marcus Whitman High School<lol I wrote that one. You're an administrator, wow. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh my God, I'm sorry, you deleted the article, duh. Man, could you tell me what user created it. It has to be someone from my school. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, could you tell me who made that article; all public logs does not tell. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not who you think I am:) But anyway, the Lindsey Sprague article I deleted was created by User:Publius74. DMacks (talk) 05:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. How do you figure that out? Where do you find that info? Daniel Christensen (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Admins can see the edit-history of deleted articles. DMacks (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Also

That account was created on the same day as that article was deleted. Did it used to be that autoconfirmation was not necessary for creating articles? Daniel Christensen (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No idea about that autoconfirmation requirement. DMacks (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)