User talk:DMacks/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions with User:DMacks. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

It will be interesting to see you prove that Hume was not a racialist. See my reference to Immerwehr in jstor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The sentence "Hume remains one of the racialists of Western philosophy. " does not make any sense: either he is or he isn't a racialist...that status isn't changeable, so saying he "remains" one is not sensible. The general theme of the section you edited is discussing how important he is, and the sentence ""Hume remains one of the giants of Western philosophy." sums up that thought well (concluding sentence of the paragraph). If you want to add material about some previously-unmentioned facet of his philosophy or something like that, that's fine, but would go somehere else, and I see no cite to "Immerwehr" anywhere in the article or on the talk-page and no ref added by your IP at all. DMacks (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:David_Hume#Race. My remark was made with 86.160.202.155 and transferred to the current paragraph. I use endless IP's. My edit in the Hume article was intended to be a sarcastic parody of the original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I stupidly spelled John Immerwahr's name wrongly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to WikiXDC, a special meetup event and celebration on Saturday, January 22 hosted by the National Archives and Records Administration in downtown Washington, D.C.

• Date: January 22, 2011 (tentatively 9:30 AM - 5 PM)
• Location: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), downtown building, Pennsylvania Avenue & 7th St NW.
• Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
• Details & RSVP: Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.

Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What are you TALKING ABOUT? I just redirected the Poltergust 3000 article to the Professor E. Gadd section of List of Mario series characters. DUH. So, why did you leave a message on my talk page saying I made an unconstructive edit? What article did I create unconstructive edits on? - 76.220.45.223 (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You flagged User talk:David Gerard to be deleted, stating that the user's talk-page was pure vandalism. You did it twice, in fact. See [1] for the full list of edits attributed to you. DMacks (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for finding the FDA letter. Nesteoil (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! DMacks (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for speedying RESPONSE Advertising Ltd. a few minutes ago. Unfortunately, it's back. User:Responseadbd has restored the article and is removing the speedy deletion template. They have a probable sock (anon IP) who was also removing the speedy template on the old article, though I can't get to that history anymore. Can I trouble you to clear this up again? Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And now that I look closer, it looks like you're not around ATM. I took it to WP:AIV; someone else can clear it up. Thanks and have a good night. Zachlipton (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Al B Romano thats me. I got 4 star reviews in every magazine worldwide and i will show you photographic eveidence and u can investigate it yourself. Kerrang magazine Sept 16 1996 page 41 4 star, review, Guitar world aug. 1996 pg 166 4 star review, Rip magazine feb 1994 pg 40 4 star review, he music paper march 1996 pg r7 4 star review. anyway i dont know were or who put 2 stars down. No such review existed. ray Gillen died Mike Starr from Alice in chains was in the band and it was a great album. Im Al Romano 914 396 2769 [email protected]. you can contact me on dali gaggers@myspace or sun red sun at myspace. My x girlfriend is insane she does this to upset me. Cant you find the ip adress of this person so i can go after them for damages? this has to stop. Im friends of the manson wikipedia guys and gave them a bunch of free stuff. thanks AL B ROMANO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert Romano 1965 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

AL B Romano 4 Star reviews for sun red sun worldwide. we never got anything less than 4 stars. a 2 1/2 star review doesnt exist my friend. thanks AL

 Im trying to leave you references  the actual magazine articles but i dont know how to attach them. can you send me an email to mail the reviews to thanks  AL ROMANO  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert Romano 1965 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)  I SENT YOU THE 4 STAR REVIEWS TO [email protected]

I merged the above with the previous section and responded on your user talk-page. Let's keep the discussion in one place--yours not mine, since it's about you. DMacks (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dmacks,
I was going to mention the quacking sounds from 2011Floods (talk · contribs) but it seems you've heard them already. ;-) - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 16:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope I'm going about this the right way; I'm kind of new to the whole Wiki editing thing.

I wanted to dispute the claim that Herodotus directly referred to the inhalation of hemp plant matter. From the translations I can locate, the mention of hemp only comes in later sections than the references to the anaesthetic effect of some inhalant. The only context in which hemp is mentioned appears to be in the use of the seeds for a "steam bath".

Looking back at the edit, I guess I should have been clearer, but I am still unsure about adding citations, explaining edits and, no doubt, numerous other Wikipedia conventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.73.171.112 (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the followup! I tracked down a translation at http://www.paxlibrorum.com/books/histories/ for the given "Hist. 4:73-75" cite, and it definitely agrees with use of hemp seed, and that it was used as a "vapor bath". Ot says that they used the vapors as a body cleansing ritual but describes effects more in line with inhaling rather than just skin contact (they "howl in their joy"). So our article definitely does need to be adjusted (I re-added "seed" and improved the ref there). I'm not sure a good wording for the vapor-bath idea...feel free to change, or we can word-smith it here a bit. One thing that will definitely help is if you use an WP:EDITSUMMARY for your edit so others can see why you are making a change. DMacks (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

[2] Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Squashed. DMacks (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wondering why you deleted the article on James M. Peck. I was just doing some edits on Professor Warren and LoPucki, and then the Lehman Brothers page. It seems odd that wiki would have no information on the judge who decides a) how billions of dollars gets split up in the largest ever bankruptcy case, and b) whether there should be any criminal referrals regarding actions leading up to the collapse of what had been one of our largest financial institutions. Do you believe that a public official with such powers is not in and of itself notable and newsworthy? Or should members of the judiciary be allowed special privacy? Is your issue that the article did not have enough information in it? My personal opinion is that anyone who has a profound effect on the economy and our justice system must be identified on wiki. We need to hold persons with such powers in high esteem so that the best of our youth will be drawn to the profession. I certainly don't want to create an article for Judge Peck over your deletion without discussion. --Knowsetfree (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

James M. Peck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Arbitrary public officials are not automatically notable enough for an article...need to meet all the usual standards of third-party independent referencing per WP:BIO. This person may well meet that standard, as you say he has been key in several high-profile cases. However, the article I deleted was in no way a valid wikipedia article about this person--it looks like it was a cut'n'paste of an article about someone else entirely (!), which was then erased by the author (so it was "no content" at the time of my deletion). Feel free to write an article about this judge. DMacks (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi DMacks. Agreed that not all public officials are notable, most IMHO are not. I wasn't able to view the article that was deleted so I wasn't aware of your reasons which sound rational. I appreciate that a good article could remain. I'm not sure how to create one now, not sure if it was a warning that one already existed or more of a refusal. Will look back into this when I have time. Thanks. --Knowsetfree (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The warning is just a standard one for recreating a deleted article (regardless of why the article was deleted, whether it was due to the topic itself or just the specific content, etc.)--"are you sure you know what you're doing?, not "do not do this!". Let me know if you need more assistance with this. DMacks (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

ur mean — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharPiZZ:D (talk • contribs) 20:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

See WP:UPANDCOMING. DMacks (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I realise that it would have been better to provide all links at the start. DMSBel (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem! DMacks (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles are relevant. Why delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryvxz (talk • contribs) 22:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:EL. Wikipedia isn't a repository of external links (news clippings, etc.). If there's useful material relevant to the topic, write a few sentences and use the links as references. DMacks (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I wrote some content and moved those items to be refs for it. DMacks (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear DMacks, I am puzzled by the deletion of the "HamSphere" wiki page which I wrote. Inspired by the "EchoLink" page I felt there was a need for a "HamSphere" wiki page.

Please explain to me why the Ham Radio system "Echolink" may exist as a wiki page and "HamSphere" not. These systems are extremely important for many human beings and I cannot for my world understand why it was removed. I am a user of both systems and I think that both technologies are worth describing on a place like Wikipedia. Both system share many common details, but are also different is their underlying technology.

Sincerely Ken Olsen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken Olsen (talk • contribs) 23:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• HamSphere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• EchoLink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As stated in the delete message, "does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". It doesn't mean the subject isn't notable, it just means that the article at that time did not. At that time, it was a two-sentence statement of what it was; that's it. The new article you have written is substantially better. However, see WP:WEB to see the minimal standard for an article about an online service or system. I have no idea about EchoLink (as an admin, I merely carry out the tasks, I don't pro-actively seek out inappropriate articles), but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a terribly weak rationale. DMacks (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I am new to wikipedia and I will see WP:WEB to become a good wiki writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken Olsen (talk • contribs) 23:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Bra-ket_notation's talk page. —UncleDouggie (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for engaging on the issue on the Intelius page. I would ask you if you can please make the protection on the version that doesn't include the disputed section as it refers to a person who is under BLP criteria and any material about him that is under contention as a WP:RS should be removed first and only then discussed according to my understanding of WP:BPL. Thank you again. 173.160.205.2 (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Intelius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No. WP:BLP applies to statements about people, not use of statements by people about other things. Similarly, the question of whether the cite to him is WP:RS is also not a BLP issue for him. DMacks (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The article sourced clearly talks about the person in question in addition to just talking about the company he co-founded.

For example:

• Article title is "Naveen Jain's Latest Scam: Intelius"

and here are some excerpts from the article

• "a lot of people thought he [Naveen Jain] would never be trusted by the financial markets again".
• "Given Jain’s history, you’d think he’d go out of his way to be squeaky clean at his most recent startup, particularly as the company is going public and under significant scrutiny. But that may not be the case.".

Thank you for your consideration. 173.160.205.2 (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That is not the disputed-source content, that's just the source title and may relate to other statements in the source that are not being cited. The WP content is completely impersonal, so WP:BLP does not apply. DMacks (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I would suggest that cherry-picking content to make it avoid BLP issues is a dangerous precedent.173.160.205.2 (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Trinitrotoluene acsv-testing.svg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Loretto campus door.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Forwarded to User talk:Renata, who is the actual uploader (I'm just doing administrativia for this one). DMacks (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There is an ARBCOM request which is related to an AN/I thread you recently participated. You may be interested in the discussion. --Cyclopia^talk 10:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, can you undelete the page Sift heads. I changed it and I want you to review it if you can. -tyler775 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler775 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sift Heads, so will follow up there if I have any thoughts. DMacks (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I highly doubt this guy stops edit warring and editing with other accounts. I know who it is because I have already been in a dispute with him over some terribly unconstructive and incorrect additions he made to some articles. I think semi-protection would help. What do you think? Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"Know who it is" meaning another user-account than the one recently blocked today? WP:SPI is the place to track that data. I've got the page watchlisted, will prot if any more happens there. Are any other pages affected? DMacks (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The guy himself is most possibly a sock puppet of Padmalakshmisx (talk · contribs) - a full report can be seen here. The same kind of editing, the same kind of capitals use, the same kind of incoherence. Also, kindly see the history of this page as an example. Again, the same kind of editing and a very similar IP range. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

And a previous sock is Ppwrong (talk · contribs). See initial report here. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

SPI updated. DMacks (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite frustrated by Wikipedia's apparent inability to distinguish between a proper noun and a common one or a collective one.

A proper noun is capitalized.

"Congress," for example, when the word refers to that branch of the USA's federal government comprised of the Senate and the House of Representatives, is a proper noun.

Some other germane examples of proper nouns: "Congressional District" - the area which, my local Board of Elections tells me, defines the boundary of the area the person I get to vote for, as a Representative, will represent. "Congresswoman," "Congressman," honorific titles used to describe that person elected as my Representative are also used as stand-alone proper nouns.

So, please, tell me from whence comes this - what seems to me quite improper - Wikipedia omission of capital letters on proper nouns?

Ruth-Claire (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Ruth-Claire

I don't know the original basis of this style, but it's a fact that it is the style presently used on Wikipedia. One problem is that at least some of these are only proper nouns when applied as a specific title rather than generic noun itself, for example, "As of this month, Congressman Smith is the congressman who represents my home town." Again, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with specific usages, merely noting how this are done at this time. I see on your talk-page that another editor has already told you a good place to discuss it with a group of WP editors who deal in this area. DMacks (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Much obliged. I follow the line of reasoning offered and am not going to flog the poor nag of a horse any further. At least not here and now. Thanks. Ruth-Claire (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Ruth-Claire

My newer frustration is: I'm getting a Wiki error message in response to the NYTimes references I've cited. I know they're each exact copies of a Times url that mentions Mrazek. For sure I enclosed them properly, e.g., ^[1] and still I'm getting redlined. Grrrrrrrrrrump! ;-) What on earth? Ruth-Claire (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Ruth-Claire

I'd like to start a new article about the web browser Dooble. I bring this to you because you were the administrator who deleted the last version. That was eight months ago, and I have found a couple articles confirming it's notability.

• CNET Review
• Tech Republic Mention

That doesn't include the Softpedia article, and the sourceforge website. I'd like to start the article, but really don't care to start it if it's going to be speedily deleted. Please let me know if there's some sort of way it can be started without worrying about it working being wasted.

I've started other articles, so I know what's notable (I've also had articles deleted):

• Smack-Off
• Jefferson Davis State Historic Site
• gOS (operating system)
• East Tennessee bridge-burning conspiracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxonjf (talk • contribs) 00:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Dooble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sounds possible that you have enough reliable sources to prove notability now. You can start writing in your own userspace, for example, User:Saxonjf/Dooble. Once you've got something that clearly demonstrates some sort of notability (i.e., a reader might think it has overcome the problems that led to deletion per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dooble (2nd nomination), will be easy to prevent the speedy-deletion. But sandboxing will prevent anyone from dealing harshly and prematurely with it. Once it seems viable, might want to pass it through Wikipedia:Deletion review to make sure the problem really has been solved. DMacks (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the troll’s question. diff. There is also another question on the Science desk at present – similar IP address, similar topic and similar style. See diff. If you agree with me that this is probably the same troll please delete this one too. Dolphin (t) 02:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you made any more progress on modifying template:chembox? May I suggest that an incomplete revision would be better than leaving the template as it is. Anything that reduces the size, now, would be welcome.Petergans (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you think that changing the header from Feb to Jan on User talk:79.191.238.72 could be an attempt to evade the issued warnings and potential block? ConconJondor (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe sock of some long-term vandal. Or else just trying to waste admin time as a game. DMacks (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

And now changing the format of the header. I'd like to be psychic, just to know what they think they're going to achieve by doing that. ConconJondor (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't bother wasting your time with it. There are many more constructive places to apply psychic powers;) DMacks (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Duly noted. Cheers, mgiganteus1 (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Instead of trying to deleteFile:Chromium (web browser).png Can you place the appropriate template Totalaero (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any template that would make this image acceptable in its current use. Using the copyrighted WP logo in the screenshot is not fair-use because that is not a non-replaceable part of the screenshot as a demo of the software. DMacks (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have the Wikipedia Logo removed so hopefully it's all good to go now Totalaero (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine now, thanks! I transferred it to WP:COMMONS (where I first became aware of the logo issue) so other wikimedia projects can also use it in their articles. TThe English wikipedia page File:Chromium (web browser).png now falls through to the commons one commons:File:Chromium (web browser).png, so you can make further changes and new uploads to it there. DMacks (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Why do you call my work vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dergahzade (talk • contribs) 22:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

would you please put my work back there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dergahzade (talk • contribs) 22:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a large pile of uncited analysis/opinion/predictions, including statements about living people. Wikipedia policy requires verifiability of content from independent, reliable sources. DMacks (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to say hi and thanks for posting the link to the Doonesbury cartoon. I had seen it years ago -- and remembered it! -- but wasn't able to find it online. --Magmagirl (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad to be of service! DMacks (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why that template was used since the image does not include any chemical structure. --JWSchmidt (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I pinged User:Yikrazuul. DMacks (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the notice. Well, whether I use that tag or Template:Disputed diagram does not matter. The point is, this overview is wrong as it implies that Eukarya have diverged first which is impossible. Can you present us a source where you have seen that? --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

2nd big mistake: Which Archea perform (anoxygenic) photosnythesis??? What the heck is "non-chlorophyll PS"???

The IP is a user who employs multiple ips to circumvent blocks. There's really no point in threatening to block him. Serendi^podous 21:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Which needs protection: talkpage, article, or both? DMacks (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is already protected (largely because of him) but protecting the talk page would be a good idea. Serendi^podous 21:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done DMacks (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You should know that this guy has openly vowed to keep posting until after the December 2012 date, so a week-long block won't affect him much. Serendi^podous 13:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I had heard similar sentiments/rumors from others. If you could point to a specific place where he has done this, would be quite helpful to me. DMacks (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Try User talk:Shii#You called? Serendi^podous 17:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. DMacks (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You might find this interesting as well. And this. And this.Serendi^podous 00:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. DMacks (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the vandal revert on my user page! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Isn't this a fun place to work? DMacks (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It's actually quite fantastic. Nobody IRL cleans up after me as efficiently as the Wiki peeps. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I want to be one of the administrators. kindly suggest how to be one. Thanks and Regards, Sriram — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asksriram (talk • contribs) 17:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ADMIN for information. DMacks (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the writing on the Esperanza Spalding page,it's just that i've got so mad that Justin Bieber didn't won and i wrote something that i shoudn't...please forgive me :( I'm sorry. I expect replay please Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by CupcakeTiana (talk • contribs) 11:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the hardest things to do sometimes is remember that wikipedia is nothing except an encyclopedia, not place to freely write whatever you want. I'll assume you have learned a valuable lesson here about separating emotions from facts and knowing when to step away from a situation that is bothering you. DMacks (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, about 213.6.29.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), whose block you lengthened: I have no objections against a lengthening on account of personal attacks and/or continued general disruptive behaviour, but I must point out that the 83.* IP was almost certainly not him, but long-term disruptor Wikinger (talk · contribs) piggy-backing on his case, as he often does, so in terms of block evasion 213.* is probably innocent (unless he was himself already evading some sanction incurred on another account or IP). Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. 83 left blocked...impersonating a blocked editor even if not actually same. 213 left blocked per personal attack, and is just the latest incarnation of long-term IP-hopper in the its 213.6.* IP vicinity (see Ateret history among others). DMacks (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for dealing with the 213.* IP user. Possibly related and representing further block evasion, is 82.213.38.2 (talk). Same articles, POV edits and style, similar comments. I don't know whether Rawabi is under 1RR restriction, but if so, this IP (previously blocked twice for edit warring and POV pushing) is in violation. Could you have a look? Hertz1888 (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure of it now. This IP is now edit warring at Jerusalem, which is under 1RR restriction, and is repeating (falsely) the comment I made in reverting him earlier. Please help. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

do you know when will the committee decide on this? Thanks--82.213.38.2 (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what committee you are talking about. But I know you will be blocked very soon if you continue edit-warring over the content of any page related to this topic. DMacks (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

and I would like to thank you for working very hard in improving the silencing part in wikipedia! i am sure they are proud of you and your nice attitude!--82.213.38.2 (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It is my pleasure to help improve the readability and verifiability of information on notable topics for a world-wide audience. DMacks (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Professor, I have provided the source for my Pseudo Rationalist quotation for Karunanidhi under Talk. Please dont delete it.

Thanks you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asksriram (talk • contribs) 17:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not a lack of source. I see you did provide a citation. The problem is that you cut&pasted a large amount of text from the source. That is a violation of copyright policy and is forbidden. DMacks (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Please add only the URL for Pseudo Rationalist for Karunanidhi. That is enough for me. Thanks in advance.Asksriram (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asksriram (talk • contribs) 16:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

SORRY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeefan4255 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I thank you for putting that appreciation of Cp as the abbreviation of the cyclopentadienyl anion. Good job. FREYWA 14:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocking a "talk" page? How utterly pathetic. Does this make you feel POWERRFUL? Interesting strategy though to allow POD to contribute to control and screw up the 2012 phenom page with his underinformed opinions, arrogance and stupidity. Since you seem soooooooo intent on having one of the worst and most popular 2012 pages on the internet ... and be one of the largest contributors to 2012 misinformation ... so be it. Shit comes out of assholes ... that's how God designed it, so who am I to interfere? Sorry POD-stalker, go creep on and crap on someone else. ~M~ 67.164.145.1 (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Do they get the same warning or is this more one-sided, hypocritical support for POD's control trips, bullying and verbal abusive attacks? He really is fucking up the 2012 page by ignoring expert assistance. ~M~ 67.164.145.1 (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL and block-evasion are non-negotiable problems. DMacks (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

To the IP:Please read Wikipedia:What adminship is not.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You blocked this user but he/she is misusing his/her talk page. Just a tip-off.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• grumble*...talk-page access revoked for him. Thanks for the heads-up. DMacks (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi DMacks, I came across the Sequence analysis in Computational Biology that's relatively underdeveloped. Since my expertise is more devoted towards one sub-discipline of sequence analysis, I thought it'd be best if I collaborate with a few others in Bioinformatics on the page. Do you know how I can do this? Presumably, there should be a request for help type of page, but I don't know how to find it.

Thanks. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to thank YOU for blocking that IP troll that was trolling my talk page!!Jasper Deng (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

you alleged that i vandalised my own user page; i refute that. Science editor 2 (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you've deleted the grammy nominated, featured in Billboard Magazine, Yahoo.com's 38 million daily users, headlines in Newspapers, Movie Soundtracks and Television shows and is very notable. I provided all proper resources or at least I thought. I would like to respectfully ask to have have my article placed in Wiki as this is artist who I feel deserves to be in. here's the link to the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bookie1919/Matchstik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookie1919 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The previous article was written in a promotional tone and made few if any claims for notability according to the standards at the time. Remember, that was in 2008, so his Fall-2009 album and notability resulting from it could not have been known (and wikipedia isn't supposed to speculate on future notability). Your article seems viable, so I'll move it to the main article-space. Please add specific cites for each claim (for example, ref to the Billboard publication, if he's a Grammy-nom, state the year and category, etc.) DMacks (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I did it right... you can check now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookie1919 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Good references yes. Last issue is, as the box at the top of the article says, you have a block of text that makes many statements, followed by an extensive list of multiple references that each support one of the specific facts. I made an edit that illustrates the right way to cite specific facts--simply put the <ref>...</ref> for the relevant reference right at the statement itself. That way a reader can immediately determine the origin of any specific claim of interest. DMacks (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to figure it out... I also found this picture of him on his website can you tell me how to put this as his profile picture?? http://matchstik.net/MatchandMark.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookie1919 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Done it... also could you click on that link and download that photo the upload so I can put the image code in the information box.. Thanks D. for everything.. you totally rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookie1919 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That image does not appear to be freely licensed...images of people generally default to being restrictively copyrighted by whoever took them, which means Wikipedia is not allowed to use them. Here is some information about ways the owner can donate the image. Often a fan winds up donating a photo taken at a concert or something. Definitely don't have to rely on "official" pictures. Glad to be of assistance! DMacks (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

My add of a MyTalk page is being marked for autodelete. I thought that the MyTalk page is a bio page. Is that correct? If not, what is it used for? Thanks. Bruce Bruce Oliver (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:USERPAGE. Wikipedia isn't a free webhost for personal use. DMacks (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello DMacks, can you please RevDel this edit, as it was a mis-post of some pretty sensitive information. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears to have been handled already? DMacks (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it has. Thanks for your attention. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

1. At WikiXDC in January, User:Harej proposed that DC submit a bid to host Wikimania 2012. A bid and organizing committee is being formed and seeks additional volunteers to help. Please look at our bid page and sign up if you want to help out. You can also signup for the bid team's email list.
2. To support the Wikimania bid, more events like WikiXDC, and outreach activities like collaborations with the Smithsonian (ongoing) and National Archives, there also has been discussion of forming Wikimedia DC, as an official Wikimedia chapter. You can express interest and contribute to chapter discussions on the Wikimedia DC Meta-Wiki pages.
3. To discuss all this and meet up with special guest, Dutch Wikipedian User:Kim Bruning, there will be a meetup, Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 16 this Tuesday at 7pm, at Capitol City Brewery, Metro Center. There will be a pre-meetup Wikimania team meeting at 6pm at the same location.

Apologies for the short notice for this meetup, but let's discuss when, where & what for DC Meetup #17. Also, if you haven't yet, please join wikimedia-dc mailing list to stay informed. Cheers, User:Aude (talk)

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

Regarding your messages here, a range block that had been in place for 3 months expired yesterday, hence the return to disruptive editing by the 166.216.130.xx range. I have asked the original blocking admin to restore the range block to prevent any further issues. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, *sigh*:/ Thanks for the details. DMacks (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The range has been capped for a year; thank goodness it's so stable - I certainly wouldn't want to have to play whack-a-mole with this guy. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm suspicious that this user represents multiple people.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Wikigroup4comm12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Definitely possible--good catch, and approach to warning him/her/them. I reverted a pile of its edits on editorial grounds too, but taking a wait-and-see approach to continued edits. DMacks (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Now how will we tell?Jasper Deng (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If no response and continued edits, block as username policy:) If the warning either dissuaded them from continued edits or to get their own accounts without having to block, still mission-accomplished. DMacks (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That'll do. Let's watch this user's activity and see.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I reported this user on WP:AIV but that page has not received any attention in the past hour in the User-reported section. The user kept inserting POV material despite an only warning by me.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the unexpected wikibreak...I trust this has been resolved now? DMacks (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedian friend, Thank you for your comment on my talk page: A contribution you made to Peet's Coffee & Tea appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. If you view my diff of the two edits, it will be apparent that I fixed the concerns raised by Jerem43: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Starbucks&action=historysubmit&diff=419304378&oldid=419256519 Cheers, thanks! --Inetpuppy (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix! I didn't see it because I didn't look at the Starbucks page. Apparently you made similar edit to two pages, with Jerem43 seeing one of them and I the other, and neither of us seeing the other's concern. DMacks (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Just came across this ... should it instead be User:DMacks/Cyclopropane? -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yessir. That's what I get for "this'll just be a quick test" that becomes an days-ongoing one:( DMacks (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to interrupt something you were testing, just thought it was a namespace "typo". -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Turned out not to be namespace-related, and not an easy or quick fix, so no harm in getting it out of the way for now (it's related to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals#To skeletal or not to skeletal? popup functionality). DMacks (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Dmacks

Just wondering, seems like hexamethylenetetramine is a good redirect... do you disagree? [3] --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That's actually the name by which I know the compound. Seems like that may be even a better actual name for the article? Regarding that edit, I had misread the blue "quaternary hexamethylenetetramine" as a bluelink solely to quaternary rather than separate link for each word. DMacks (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Same for me. Hexamine is probably the popular name for the camping fuel. Thinking of moving the article? Thanks for looking into it. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. DMacks (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with crafting edits for our pages. I will find a good citation so our page on Greenwashing can legitimately include Cape Wind.

Note: The citation for the entry about the Bush Administration's Clear Skies Initiative, is broken so I removed that one. I will take a look at the others, too.

Yolupuki (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

you ar a control freak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.119.66 (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hexacyclinol-grafe.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, DMacks. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry.
Message added 23:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

thx DMacks (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed you too share my disapproval on the POV on Kryptos (band). The non-neutral content was added very recently by a single user and a bunch of IPs (socks?). Since I'm aleady approaching the 3RR and I don't like edit warring, could you provide your opinions and reasoning on the article's talk page and revert the POV additions if you feel that appropriate? Any eyes on keeping the obviously biased content at bay would be nice. I've already warned the user but they don't seem to listen. Thanks! Zakhalesh (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, my mistake for not clearing it up in the summary. But there's a consensus to not list songs that were sung by Indian playback singers, because they sing several songs, and many of those songs are also translated (dubbed) into regional languages by different singers, so there's a bit of confusion or disagreement as to whether who gets the credit for the song. Also, none of the songs and its details are sourced. The same applies to several other Indian playback singers, such as S. P. Balasubramaniam, Chinmayi, etc. EelamStyleZ (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good! I was not aware of that consensus. Numerous tamil/tegulu stars and films are on my watchlist due to long-term vandalism problems, but I do not know much about this specific genre. Glad to see editors working to improve these articles so much. DMacks (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I'm on those vandals as well. Thanks for your help in keeping these articles clean. They're quite hard! EelamStyleZ (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, some pension.  :) I'm only doing this as a part-time thing, believe me. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If allosteric competitive inhibition is it's proper name, then it should be called that. Otherwise it is confusing novices who are looking for inforamtion. Can you point me to a journal article that demonstrates strychnine is an example? Otherwise it seems to be a variant of non-competitive inhibition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sittininlab (talk • contribs) 22:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

gah! A few more minutes and I found the strychnine reference. I still contend it not a great example, and can be described conceptually as a non-competitive inhibition. But still, if strychnine is your example, why not put the journal article in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sittininlab (talk • contribs) 22:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The whole Competitive inhibition article is an example-free mess:( It's a bit far from my area of expertise though. Maybe alert Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology? They say this article is of high importance, so maybe some folks there would be eager to overhaul it. I added detail and cite to Enzyme. I went with a less primary-reference for it though, to demonstrate that it's in more widespread use than just what an author himself calls something he found. DMacks (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough.----

Thanks for uploading File:Border-collapse-bug.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there an excuse for making so many reverts ([4])?Jasper Deng (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No. I should have semi'ed it a while ago. I see MuZemike got it. It's a widespread problem with involving huge swaths of IP single-use IPs covering numerous Indian-cinema pages. DMacks (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the latest IP which did the questionable edit (the one starting w/ 173) needs you to explain it to him.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

.There is consensus on the WP:FILM layout standard in general and specifically against hit/flop analysis based on WP:V and WP:NOR (or simple fan edit-warring, depending on your viewpoint), discussed specifically on several wikiproject pages and certain individual articles. It's a long-term problem and IPs almost never last more than one-two edits, pointless to keep fighting the warning1... escalation or discuss with each individually. So we just have long-term SPA disruption; no idea (and per WP:DUCK nobody cares) whether it's a handful of users vs a huge number who keep fighting against the discussed WP:CONSENSUS. DMacks (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Please explain to the IP.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Did it. We (ec)'ed on his talk-page. DMacks (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I just thought I'd point out that Mardyks is evading his block again. Serendi^podous 05:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Aargh. Just to get that out of the way. I agree, we need a source for his birthday but for the life of me I can't find a single reliable source to go by. I found several fan pages which all report the June birthday but that's it. But then I really know very little about any of this and only got sucked into Indian films via rcp and happening to notice in what bad shape a lot of the articles were in. I did find this profile here but I have no idea if it's a reliable source. Honestly it looks like every other site I come across and I just don't know enough to go on (for instance if it were National Enquirer vs. New York Times I could figure out which one was the reliable source). Any ideas or do you think that link is good enough? SQGibbon (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with "aargh" too. I don't really know anything about this genre of films/actors or the reliability of various sources--somehow I got a few of the articles on my watchlist and gradually realized that soooo many of them has become little more than piles of BLP, copyvio, and editor/fan-opinions. That ref seems better than some other media-gossip-like sites I have seen. Also, "better than nothing"...if someone finds a more reliable ref that says something else, can deal with that at that time. DMacks (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I added that ref to the article. You're right, it's better than nothing. While I was looking for that ref I think I remember seeing that there was an older Vijay who has the January birthday that was being inserted here so it's my guess that there's some kind of fan war going on over which is the "best" or "real" Vijay. In any case, hopefully it's settled for now. SQGibbon (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine. Thanks for working on it! Interesting tidbit about a possible second person with same name. DMacks (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi DMacks. Thanks for watching over the Kent Hovind article. The issue seems to have blown over now. User:Dimestore acknowledged his 3rr warning on AN3, and has resigned to handling his dispute on the talk page and RSN, rather than continue to war. As you might notice from the talk page, there are a couple changes a few users would like to make to the page which are uncontested, and consensus on this and other issues seems to be pretty strong. I can file a formal RfUP if you'd prefer, but I figured asking you first might save some time. In any case, thanks for the help!   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

All set. DMacks (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The next DC Wikimedia meetup is scheduled for Saturday, May 7, 3:30-5:30 pm at the Tenleytown Library (adjacent to the Tenleytown Metro Station, Red Line), followed by dinner & socializing at some nearby place.

This is the first official meeting of our proposed Wikimedia DC chapter, with discussion of bylaws and next steps. Other agenda items include, update everyone on our successful Wikimania bid and next steps in the planning process, discuss upcoming activities that we want to do over the summer and fall, and more.

Please RSVP here and see a list of additional tentatively planned meetups & activities for late May & June on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC page.

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

Now two editors have disputed your choice of "Redundant". I even offered (or concurred with your offered) alternatives other than the "obsolete" that you dislike. Please consider getting additional input or discussing further on the talkpage. DMacks (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"OBSOLETE" has a very plain and clear implication that something better has come up - say in this case a new alloy that allowed bullets to pass through a propeller blade with little or no deflection and no damage to the propeller. Or perhaps a new adjustable harmonisation of wing mounted armament that allowed unsynchronised guns to be sighted as precisely as nose mounted ones. Even the universal replacement of guns with rockets. All of these things would have effectively replaced synchronised gun armament with something else - they would have rendered synchonising gear OBSOLETE.

Now what happened instead was that the propeller simply disappeared. It wasn't there any more. There wasn't any replacement device for gun synchronised armament. The hydraulic C.C gear of 1917, and the German electrical system of the late thirties remain the best gears of their kind. No alternative to gun synchronisation has been devised - given a spinning propeller, and the need to fire a machine gun through it we still need to avoid the bullets striking the propeller. Wing mounted guns still get harmonised at a fixed range, no device has ever been made to adjust for the actual range and thus make decentralised guns as accurate as synchronised ones. And finally - the gun remains an important part of a fighter's armament - in spite of improved rocketry.

What actually happened is that there was simply no need for gun synchronisation gear, because the propeller it would have been synchronised with isn't there any more. The propeller IS obsolete - it is replaced by jet thrust. The synchronisation is NOT obsolete, it has not been replaced with anything - it has just been removed as REDUNDANT.

Something that needs replacing (or has been replaced) with something better can be said to be obsolete. Something that might as well no be there at all is redundant.

Something as simple and clear cut as this is not a matter of counting heads, even if it was a question worth arguing about. The point is that we have argued this one through once before - it was a waste of time from beginning to end - and any repeat would be equally a waste of time. There is very simply absolutely nothing wrong with REDUNDANT in this context. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Counting heads isn't my goal. But using words according to their corect meaning seems to be both of our goals. I don't think OBSOLETE is the best choice, but I'm sure that REDUNDANT is not either. The plain-language definitions of REDUNDANT lean towards being not needed as a duplicate of some other existing thing, which is definitely not true...there is no other feature that keeps the bullets from hitting the propellers. I know...that doesn't even make sense, because there aren't propellers. That's why I think it's a poor word here--there are surely ways of saying "no longer needed" without implying "...because duplicating some other thing". Like "no longer necessary", or "a no longer useful feature". I think what's "obsolete" is the whole idea that one needs to avoid the propeller (the genre, not the specific example of it). DMacks (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The plain meaning of REDUNDANT is "superfluous because not needed" - the "because duplicating some other thing" meaning is really a computer science term. Looking up Wikidictionary, Websters, and Oxford all serve to confirm this. Since we are not discussing computer systems there is no ambiguity here, although I recognise that someone with no life away from his computer (tend that way myself!) might feel otherwise. "Superfluous" is a near synonym, and miles better than "obsolete", but why use NEARLY the right word when EXACTLY the right word is available? "Superfluous" generally refers to a quantity (specifically, "too much") rather than a thing - the derivation, if you know your Latin, is "over-flowing". That's really not what is involved here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for rescuing me there. Just wondered what the best thing for me to do is if I find myself in that situation? Mato (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I live in KDH.. I know exactly where on west 3rd street and 158 where this picture was taken of the water town..Do you want to face north from that point and take a pictures of the Kangaroo gas station too on 158? This picture is in the snow and of the Food Lion parking lot? This doesn't represent the KDH skyline either...I'm tired of seeing this terrible picture on my facebook location too.. I had many friends that are local to the OBX say the same thing..What skyline do you prefer?.. When the weather clears I will upload a better picture from the Wright Memorial facing towards KDH...

Regards,

Jeremy27948 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy27948 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to see a nice picture that represents the town well. The beach scene is certainly prettier than the winter mess, but not sure "it's on the coast" is really representative of the whole town. I've seen some place-pages have a combination of more than one image, so could have a city-scape and a coast together. Would that represent the two major town features? The memorial sounds like a good idea too, since it is something to which non-locals can relate more easily. DMacks (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I will adventure out when the weather clears..I just really disliked that past picture with the snow of the Food Lion parking lot on 158.. The clear Carolina blue skies and beach with the bright obxican sun is our skyline...The KDH Dune basically is the highest point.. I will figure out something..

Thanks again, Jeremy27948 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy27948 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I put a warning on his user page. The page is now on my watchlist and I will moniter it. If he resumes his biased behavoir, I will ask for him to be blocked. Thanks again! Shakinglord (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The page was deleted, We need help to list compoany on wikipedia, it says copyrite from businessweek, but that information is provided by SDP

Appreciate your help

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdptelecom (talk • contribs) 09:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:CORP is the standard guideline for articles about companies. Especially if it's just content provided by the company, it's almost certainly completely inappropriate content for Wikipedia (WP is not a free webhost, but instead requires use of sources independent of the subject. To my eye, the company does not appear "notable" enough to merit an article at this time. DMacks (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have requested speedy deletion for the first time,and I do not know what to do now. I requested the deletion on Benjamin T. Wood. Please help! Shakinglord (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

All you have to do it template the article and preferably put a notice on the creator's talk-page. The speedy template automatically places the article in a queue for admins (and anyone else interested) to help triage (deciding it's not obviously deletable, fixing it, or deleting it). Looks like someone else beat me to it. I agree that while it might not be notable enough (I didn't have a chance to look deeply at the sources), there is at least a claim of notability that sounds credible, so needs additional eyes and time (WP:AFD for example) than obviously/blatantly deletable on-the-spot. DMacks (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• " Having to deal with these idiots is really trying " [5]

• " I am loosing my patience and have a hard time staying civil when confronted with such people. " [6]

• " Please find an actual reliable source, not this encyclopedia nonsense. " [7]

[ Sources: ( Grove Art, Oxford University Press.; The concise Oxford dictionary of art and artists.; Old Master Paintings and Drawings. Di Roy Bolton. ) ] --Davide41 (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

See: Giulio Clovio

• For the mathematician... Professor of History: " All are tertiary sources "
• The claim for a Croatian Clovio emerges every now and then from that country's dilettante historians (also mathematicians, analysts, engineers etc.)
• This person does not recognize published documents and after attempts to explain on the talk page, apparently suffers from a reading problem. Can you help? Thanks.

-- In 35 years of teaching. Absurd and humiliating. --

• I decided to remain silent ... but I am continually insulted. --Davide41 (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

And I am involved how? DMacks (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)