User talk:DMacks/Archive 11

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.

Thanks so much for your help with the Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World page. I think your version is much better. I'd been following the format for another institute's page that listed all its faculty, so figured I should do the same. But your edits make it look much cleaner and easier to follow. I appreciate it! Atalantaruns (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! DMacks (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

[1] [2] Tijfo098 (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for this edit, I couldn't find the syntax to do a double image. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! DMacks (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, DMacks. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 03:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

How can I put my on words if that is the facts? I don't get it, I cannot change if our University Seal consists principally of a nine-pointed golden star. that is the facts, do I have to put my own words and change nine-pointed to seven pointed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deantamaraw (talk • contribs) 18:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

An important skill one learns in school is how to write something based on a reference without making what you write sound like the reference itself. You may wish to contact your teachers if you need help developing your writing skills. For some plain facts, such as a color or shape of a symbol, a simple direct statement may really be the only way to say it. But the bulk of the repeatedly inserted content in the article is extensive prose that is not in the "simple facts" realm. See, for example, Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. The articles related to FEU have a long history of editors, presumably related to the school, repeatedly inserting hopelessly unacceptable (per wikipedia policy on copyright) content. Despite repeated warnings. Despite many comments on the article talkpage. Therefore we have no choice but to prohibit editing entirely. Wikipedia cannot be a vehicle for copyright infringement. DMacks (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, first off all apologies if this is the wrong place to put this I wasn't sure. I sent an email to you and I'll post it here. I have made a few edits as I was angry at the time and probably should have cooled down before writing it.

"I'd like to know why my account was blocked without any warning whatsoever and for no reason.

18:14, 19 May 2011 DMacks (talk | contribs) blocked Gdp89 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts)

I was not abusing multiple accounts, I was using my account which I created after having a ban lifted for vandalism, to finish a conversation with someone on the talk page of my IP address. all my posts were made under this account from the time it was created. I created it because I realised that I shouldn't have been mucking around like I was and wanted to start fresh. If I was actually going to carry on vandalising pages etc don't you think I would have stayed anonymous rather than creating an account.

The only edits I had made since being on the account were to my own talk pages and yes they were silly but as I pointed out on the page itself they were all written with my tongue firmly in my cheek and in the belief that It was only my talk page not something that anyone particularly is going to read ie. I wasn't messing with actual information. I (maybe mistakenly) assumed it was like my own page that I could do what I liked to.

If this was against Wikipedia policy then I apologise and am happy for it to have been removed and will refrain in the future. However I feel like blocking me completely with no warning whatsoever, especially when it had been days since I even edited anything was premature and I should have been warned first and allowed to give my side.

Thank You in advance for reconsidering. I look forward to receiving a reply. "

Since sending this I realised only my account was blocked not my ip. I then read some of Wikipedia's policies particularly around multiple accounts etc and realised I may have violated these by not retiring the ip address account when starting the new one and by linking the account to my old behavior by posting my old talk page ( clean start policy ) If this was the reason for my block/ban or if it was something else i would like to request that the account "gdp89" be unblocked and that I then cease any activity on this ip address account and start clean with appropriate behavior.

Apologies for the length of this message. Feel free to remove it once you have read.

203.97.99.72 (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello DMacks,

We are new to Wikipedia - thank you for the welcome message and the comments on the updated entry for Weigle Information Commons. We will make corrections to the entry as per your guidance over the next few days and hope that we will be able to meet your standards and those of the Wikipedia community.

Pennwic (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for blocking Rickystanzi who had, using that name and an IP, repeatedly vandalized my user page. It's much appreciated! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Glad to be of service. DMacks (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I contributed my opinion to the Book of Mormon talk page. I hope it's useful. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for collaborating! DMacks (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I am taking a week or so break and forcing myself to be "unplugged". Back soon, don't break everything in the meantime! DMacks

back. DMacks (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't want to push for his re-blocking right away but if you wander over to Talk:2012 phenomenon you'll notice that Mardyks is back. Serendi^podous 19:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will keep an eye on it. DMacks (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You wrote "Manual of Style guidelines instruct not to use ROWSPAN in filmography tables". Can you show me where it says this? I have never seen it before, and I deal mainly with film and actor articles. I find that they cause a lot of confusion and probably would not mind them being banned; it's just that they are used everywhere. BollyJeff || talk 02:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ACTOR#Filmography tables. I first started hating them as an editor because it's harder to add new entries (have to remember to bump the number...and that clutters the revision-diff display), then found that guideline which raises important readership points. DMacks (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try to start removing them. I actually have mixed feelings because they look so good when they work. BollyJeff || talk 17:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday you deleted an outing on Talk:Deborah_Houlding and gave a comment on the page. But one editor continues to harp on the removed materials both on Talk:Deborah_Houlding and on Talk:Dennis_Elwell_(astrologer). I asked him to remove his comments and focus on content, but there is no reply. How to resolve this ongoing problem? And can these comments be deleted as well? Are there any other steps I can or need to take? Thanks. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Issue seems to be resolved for now as another WP administrator has removed more disruptive materials on a Wikiquette_alerts I opened for it today. Also deleted some ad hominem comments on the talks pages as per [WP:TALKO]]. Thanks anyway. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Re your message: Yup. Block works for me. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - it works for me too. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I understood, I will discuss first before making new categories.--حسن علي البط 00:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you for responding. You are not currently blocked, so feel free to resume editing. DMacks (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks alot sir. --حسن علي البط 00:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear DMacks;

How are you ?

I wrote(modified) the article again, which is pasted in user draft section, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dcmpuri/Durga_Charan_Mohanty If you run the tool http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/ and comper, only Book Names, Place names, Institution name, birth year should display as duplicates.

I hope you will find this new article in order. Please appove and allow to repost Durga Charan Mohanty again. Hoping a positive response from your side. Dcmpuri (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi DMacks. Don't you want to use the gadget Twinkle for nominating files for deletion? This is much more efficient than doing it manually. --Leyo 08:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

When I last tried TW (maybe a year or so ago) I had lots of problems getting it working. Can't remember if it interfered with something else I used or didn't make the task that led me to it any easier. Will try again and see. DMacks (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, adding an item to the page toolbar row made a mess on my old narrow monitor with old WP theme. Looks reasonable now--thanks for the reminder! DMacks (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear DMacks or receiver, my name is Arni Thorgrimur Kristjansson and I am a pharmacist. In 2007/2008 I wrote this assay, as a student, about Curcuminoid and it didn´t get high grade score. I want to delete it. I am the author and I must be in my rights to delete it. Feel free to write about Curcuminoid yourself :)

And please stop sending me posts, happysailor, jamesBWatson and DMacks you must have better things to do.

Best regards Arni (Arnithorri (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC))

No. You contributed it to wikipedia, at which time you explicitly released control of it: you placed it under GFDL and similar licensing when you clicked "save page". You do not have any right to demand it be deleted because it is not "yours". You can ask (just file a WP:AFD request) but it will likely be declined because the topic and content meets wikipedia standards for inclusion. By that same nature, anyone else is free to edit what you wrote, and that combination everyone's contributions is the current article, per site policy. It's not a free web-host for each person's own items for personal use, but rather a place to collaborate on writing public articles. I'm fine not sending you any more messages...I'll keep on working on your starting-point with additional material and changing yours in keeping with WP policy and editorial guidelines. DMacks (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi DMacks. How does the {{spa}} tempate work again? What bit do I put {{here|spa}}? Oh yes, "chookas" is the Australian theatre version of "break a leg" --Shirt58 (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering what "chookas" was! AFD page is on my watchlist...I'm sensing a {{notavote}} in its future too. DMacks (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Great job fighting vandalism! It's helpful and suggested to post various "warning" templates on user talk pages when this occurs, as it did with Fuel cell. The templates can be found at WP:VAND.

Hope all is well. Have a nice day!

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Roodog2k (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

In the less than one minute after I had reverted, he had already re-vandalized, you had re-reverted and warned. My click/type speed isn't as fast as you think. Definitely not appropriate to pile multiple warnings on a single editor until he has seen the first warning. I'm not offended that you noticed, but WP:DTTR...you can be sure I know what the warnings are:) DMacks (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree! I'm glad I didn't offend. I was unsure if you were new, was assuming good faith. Be well, my friend, and have a nice day!Roodog2k (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You too--enjoy your time on the 'pedia! DMacks (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you realize that you locked the article with the disputed edits by the brand new editor, not those of the long time contributors? Could you possibly correct this? BollyJeff || talk 18:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't care. He makes a valid editorial point with a supporting ref, so I cannot choose sides (cf. if it had been a WP:BLP or obvious vandalism). DMacks (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I replaced fan/media speculated box office data with official data published by the producer/distributor Sun TV of the the film Enthiran. But my edits were reverted 1st, 2nd and 3rd time by two editors User:Vensatry and User:Bollyjeff who are blindly reverting the article (with misleading edit summaries) to keep inflated figures (about 2.1 times higher). I reckon both editors are fans.Kollyfan (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It is good that you are citing reliable-sounding sources in the discussion. Please keep it on the article talk-page (not on my talkpage). This 3-day lock forces all of you to post your sources and thoughts about their reliability. You may wish to ask at the wikiproject(s) noted at the top of the article talk-page and/or at WP:3O to get input from additional uninvolved editors to help get consensus. I'm not willing to change the article or analyze the ongoing discussion at this time. DMacks (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Given how well this guy knows his way around WP, even though the account was just registered today, he is probably a WP:Sockpuppet. Now we have to do all kinds of extra work to get a third opinion; what a waste. Oh, and I found that "wrongversion" article to be very demeaning. BollyJeff || talk 18:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You all really don't want me to get involved in mandating a resolution to this yet. Please state your cases on the talk-page. I need something more than "seems to know his way around" (since I don't even know which of the multiple accounts we're talking about) before I can go further in that direction. I know it's a pain, but I'm really not familiar with anything about the topic, just an admin who noticed an edit-war and stamped it out. Editors in the parent wikiprojects are the best resource...they may have an actual guideline about what is WP:RS for this issue and about use of studio tally-sheets vs media reports. DMacks (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is an update. Its been over two days, and a consensus is starting to form on Talk:Enthiran#Official_Box_office_-_Rs.179_crore, on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Enthiran_dispute, and on User talk:Kollyfan against the changes made by Kollyfan. It is unclear though if he will accept that. No one on any of the projects have come forth with guidelines, just common sense. This earnings debate has been going on forever on Indian cinema articles, because their are no official third party records kept, as there is in USA for instance. What will happen when the lock is lifted if Kollyfan continues to force his way? BollyJeff || talk 21:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

And right on cue, he is at it again, ignoring all input and consensus. Someone suggested he may be a sock of User:Sreekar akkineni, but I don't know. BollyJeff || talk 13:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I see other admins have handled this already in various ways. I'll try to take another look at these various situations tomorrow, especially the socking. DMacks (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The user 58.110.240.225 is at it again with pestering me do his Blinky Bill request. I've got better things to do than look all over the internet to seek things to meet his satisfaction. Deltasim (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like another admin handled it. A bunch of us have your talkpage watchlisted now and will be promptly dealing with him if (sadly more like when) he returns. DMacks (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I object to your speedy deletion of the redirect. The vote on the AfD was four deletes, tow keeps, and two merges. Your action without allowing for discussion is not helpful. If you will not reconsider this, please advise me to whom I should appeal. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The closure was what it was, so I'm stuck following it as precedent. If you'd like to dispute the closure, first talk to the closing admin (see AfD for details), and then you could push up to WP:DRV if you choose, as places to discuss or change that precedent. DMacks (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read the other facts that follow "In 2007 he had a cameo appearance in "The Plot to Bomb the Panhandle" video, by A Day to Remember. Jeremy can also be seen in the viral video "Porn Star Insurance"[36] for The Glorious Internet.[citation needed]" None of which are cited or in any way different than mine. I believe you are letting personal feelings cloud your judgement sir. He did in fact appear in an interview with KassemG. How else shall I put that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Limyu (talk • contribs) 15:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

They have specific links to the source. Yours did not. WP:NLIST is a good guide for extensive "he did this, and this, and this..." types of sections, since Wikipedia is definitely not a full resume of everything someone has done. So the others are either independently notable (bluelink to a wikipedia article) hosts/videos/programs or have independent sources mentioning it. I was unable to find a wikipedia article for the comedian or his program you mention. One of the other entries on that page you mention was indeed inappropriate for the same reasons, so I removed it--thanks for helping to keep wikipedia free of uncited and non-notable cruft (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Several editors have raised concerns about your specific entry, so WP:BRD: ball's in your court to start a discussion to get support for including it (this discussion here is fine, feel free to point other editors to it). DMacks (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed there was a slight (unintentional) bug with this image and u sought to have the file removed from the commons website. I will try and correct the image so that it no lonmger has to be deleted.--Aschwole (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I assume we're talking about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alprazolam synthesis.png? Feel free to correct and post a comment on that deletion-requests that it's been fixed--I definitely don't oppose keeping png when they are correct even when svg are also available. DMacks (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice regarding the rev'deleting on my talk page. Were you a party to this? I was gone for a couple of days, and I guess I missed some of the action. Was I a target of outgoing, or just collateral damage along the way? Thanks Tiggerjay (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Your talkpage was just collateral damage...content didn't involve you but happened to get posted there, I have no idea why. DMacks (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh what fun. thanks again for the notice and giving me a clue about what happened. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi DMacks, Why was a page which was in the process of being verified and updated with links deleted? It was clearly marked as a work in process and significant to the subject it is involved in with numerous publications that cite the subject as significant in its field. Is it possible to recover the page as I had new information to add to it. Page in question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon_beats Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.198.189 (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For your contributions! Fewq567 (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Instead of faffing around, why not block the user? His username is an obvious violation. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 19:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah yeah (too late though, I already did:). I gave him two chances 'cuz I'm in a good mood but didn't notice the username also. DMacks (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work! Fewq567 (talk) 09:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hiya, you gave me a link and helped me with [[3]]

I was wondering if there was a section dedicated for newcomers to ask questions? I've looked but so far I've just found FAQs and guides rather than a help section where people answer questions. Gorlack36 (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help desk is a good place for questions about WP itself (use, features, where to find more info about WP topic X, etc.). DMacks (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much; I'm embarrassed I didn't stop that before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorlack36 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Lots of things are obvious once you see them but WP is a dense pile until then. DMacks (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

	The Willy on Wheels Willys on Wheels Award for Excellence in Page Move Fixing
	Hi - thanks for untangling the knots I got myself into with Ruti Sela - Shirt58 (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! DMacks (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

HappyFourthofJuly. You're an awful Wikipedian awesome. HereSAnEPICcHeeseBurger. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yum--thanks! I just ate, so I'll keep this one in my pocket until later tonight. DMacks (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I was tryng to understand which is the problem... This is the page about my band, I have all the right about it... and You report to me something about the latexxx teens uk fans myspace page... look really crazy!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icylxt (talk • contribs) 10:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

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

The page would require an entire rewrite from scratch in order to pass the minimal standards to be an allowable page. It was tagged (and I agree) for the following speedy-deletion criteria: WP:CSD#A7, WP:CSD#G11, WP:CSD#G12. Your article sounds exactly like a MySpace page...heavily promotional and chatty, totally not what an encyclopedia article is. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to learn how to release permission to the rights to your content. But also see WP:COI to learn why maybe you are having trouble here. DMacks (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear

i am trying to create page on wikipedia as 'Simmtronics', i am new to wikipedia, and can u help me to creat Simmtronics page , I am woking with Simmtronics as a webadmin,

ravi shankar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravishankar18 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

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

WP:CORP is a good guide to the minimal requirements a company must have (and its article include) in order to deserve a page. I cannot help you create the page because I do not have any evidence that the company is meets those requirements. WP:FIRST is a guide to getting started writing pages. For this case, you definitely should also read WP:COI. DMacks (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I am trying to understand why you have deleted the YouASTRO page. I think it should have a page as all the other reference management software (RMS) listed in the category. Actually, in the page I wrote, I gave more information than the one is listed in other RMS which have already a page, like e.g. Bibsonomy. Therefore, I conclude that if Bibsonomy has its own page, I dont see why YouASTRO should haven't.

You admit you are not sure about YouASTRO page to be a commercial or adverstisement, indeed it is not. The sytem is free and it is used by a lot of astrophysicists, probably having more users than other RMS listed therein.

I have the intention to update the Comparison page, to make people understand what are the differences wrt the other RMS listed therein.

Moreover, I tried to userify the page, but YouASTRO it is not listed in the deletion log of the deletion review page. Therefore, now I am completely lost, because for sure any recreation would result again in deletion.

Any further suggestion from you is appreciated.

Best regards Sanna030 (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

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

The article fails WP:WEB, the minimal standard for notability. On its face, therefore, it meets WP:CSD#A7 regardless of whether it also has other serious problems. I don't doubt that it exists and that lots of details about it could be written. But unless other publications have reported in-depth on it yet, it doesn't merit a wikipedia article yet. WP is explicitly not supposed to try to be a complete product directory. I can revive and userfy it if you want to work on it for a while (once it's deleted, it's gone from all user views, but it can be undeleted back into your userspace). DMacks (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If I can eventually re-propose it for the mainspace after I added a list of other publications reporting it, then please yes, revive it and userfy into my userspace. Thanks for your explanations. Sanna030 (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely! A personal sandbox is a great place to work on it until it meets standards for moving into public article-space. I revived it to User:Sanna030/YouASTRO and left a message-box at the top with some links for finding more information about article standards. Let me know if you need further assistance. DMacks (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What does Deuce need to be able to qualify for an article? I set this up on his behalf, by his wishes. He will want to know why so that he can either discuss it with his lawyer or do the things he needs to do in order to keep his article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueBlue9LIVES (talk • contribs) 18:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

First, you should read WP:NLT, so you can either retract part of your statement or have all edits on his behalf blocked idefinitely. Then if you choose to participate collaboratively, you can move on to WP:COI and WP:BAND to decide if this person does merit an article according to Wikipedia standards. If so, you'll want to go through WP:DRV to prove your case. DMacks (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi - just wondered why you deleted the Alejandro Saravia page? Can you let me know so I can re word it if something has caused offence. Thanks. Something to do with the Sydney Latino Festival website but that is an article with wording provided by Alejandro himself. I have simply replicated Alejandro's own bio... Best regards,Sophie Cross

All wikipedia content needs to be written "from scratch" based on sources, not copying a subject's own words about itself, otherwise it's a WP:COPYVIO. See also WP:RS...even the self-written ideas from a subject aren't necessarily a good starting point. DMacks (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the article you mention about MainesXtremeRadio.com has been written and is in process for approval, (new contributor.) This is why I added that net station and Cyberstationusa.com which simulcasts some of MainesXtremeRadio's programming. I have not yet written an article for Cyberstationusa as I do not have much information outside of their own web-page. When I get the opportunity to do so I will, I feel I need more than the station's own advertising to write a decent starter article. Thank you, Mainelymania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainelymania (talk • contribs) 22:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That all sounds fine. The list-of article is only for actual live articles, though, not ones not-yet-approved. As soon as the article is moved into mainspace, it would be fine to link it. But until then, no...list-of articles are not supposed to contain redlinks, external URLs, or other "not live article" items. DMacks (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The material that had been added by User:Gallant4 to the article for Long Branch, New Jersey for Algeria Junius "June" Clark which you removed as a red link, constituted this editor's fourth edit in Wikipedia. I agree that the link was red and the source was not appropriate, but I think that we need to be a little more cognizant of the limitations of new editors. Using the nickname and last name I guessed that the name he was looking for was June Clark, which was for the wrong person but did have a hat note directing me to June Clark (musician). There was a mention of Long Branch, but no sources, so added them to the article for the person and reinserted the notable into the Long Branch article with the required sources. I left a note at the user's talk page to explain this all and hope that we can all be a bit more patient with newbies, especially when we can figure what it is they're trying to do with a little bit of effort. Alansohn (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I looked briefly but couldn't find it. Glad you could sort it out for him. DMacks (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I was not the user who edited the article on Internet begging. I am the user editing Singaporean politicians pages. This is a shared IP as stated on my talk page, if you are unaware. So I would appreciate if you do not intervene with edits made in Vivian Balakrishnan page.

I was not the user who edited the article on Internet begging. I am the user editing Singaporean politicians pages. This is a shared IP as stated on my talk page, if you are unaware. So I would appreciate if you do not intervene with edits made in Vivian Balakrishnan page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.13.10 (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You have no basis to exclude me from fixing an unexplained introduction of a typographical mistake. I even checked the cited source, so it is per WP:V policy. I know you (working on the .sg articles) mean well, but as the IP talkpage says, perhaps this would be a good time for you to create a login account, so you don't get tarnished with the bad edits of others who get this shared IP. DMacks (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, can you semi-protect this article. IP's keep continuing their disruptive activities. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 15:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

A. R. Murugadoss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Similar edits appear to be coming from registered users as well, therefore, semiprotection would not solve the problem. Full protection would exclude even you and others working to improve the article. I'll watchlist the article and see if the probelm is "mostly" IPs over the next day or two. If so (even if others also a problem) I will semi to help improve (even if not fully solve) the problem. DMacks (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out on List_of_astrologers. I recently cleaned up on that page, even removing phone numbers, but it has ongoing problems with people trying to spam it. Perhaps some kind of block can be put on that page?

Astrologers are giving me a lot of trouble since I went though all the pages on that list and tagged the articles that were seriously lacking (which unfortunately is most of them). I am even being publicly criticized for doing as much as tagging them. Now they seem to have set their sights on some astronomy articles, where they are trying to push in extended astrology sections. I am being outnumbered, and I always wonder where so many pro-astrology editors suddenly come from on a little watched astronomy page about a fixed star. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad I could help. It's not my usual area of vandal-tracking, was led there from another watchlist trigger. Regarding the problem of widespread edits you notice, I assume they "just know" which pages to edit:) But seriously, it's a long-term problem, often fed by off-wiki canvassing and puppetry. It's more extreme on that genre especially now, but in general the same sort of thing flares up for all sorts of WP:FRINGE and pseudoscience. I have no idea a good solution other than vigilance:( DMacks (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have been thinking that not having external links sections, at least for some categories of articles, would solve a lot of problems already. If need be, then just put in some standard template that generates some google search link for the words in the name of the article. Most people know how to use search engines anyway, so why is WP torturing itself with external links, and the constant need to clean them up, not to mention link rot.

Of course, doing this might move the problem into reference spam, but I think that's a bit easier to keep in check. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	can u let it be for just one night i would be appreciated Champbrees (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for practical jokes. DMacks (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

Could you please point out where exactly the article mentioned in the subject looks like an advertisement? With all due respect I tried to make it as unbiased as possible, and in no way did i mean for it to be an advertisement. The Awards section is supported by the respective reference links. I really appreciate what you are doing by trying to keep Wikipedia a cleaner and more reliable source, so could you please tell me where exactly it needs rewriting. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicadin (talk • contribs) 09:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure. My comment on that tag was "massive content on minute details push this towards WP:NOTDIR product catalog". For example, the large tables of features could be summarized in a sentence or two each. And the multicolumn list of products could be summarized with a sentence or two mentioning the key genres and product series (rather than "FOO" "FOO Pro" "FOO OtherVariant" specifics). One major red-flag is the use of the word "solutions"--that's a good sign of PR tone rather than neutral content. Let me know if you need further assistance. DMacks (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the beloved "solutions"! If it isn't about the results of equations, or solute(s) dissolved in solvent(s), then the word "solutions" is one of the surest signs of marketing being committed in Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. I'll try to rewrite the things that you mentioned.Vicadin (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC+6)

"cited ref appears to be a blog by a non-notable author"

What does non-notable mean? That YOU have never heard of the author? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.20.93 (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:AUTHOR is our standard. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, stalkie! DMacks (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that you are editing the new intro to Bills page It has some POV issues and citations that need to be cleared up too. We need to discuss them on the discussion page --Paul the less (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I have the page watchlisted. DMacks (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks DMacks for your help. This was my first time to edit a page. I'm a migraine sufferer and have done quite a bit of research on the subject. I just wanted to add some references to clean it up a little.

johnrebell1 (7/14/2011 1:42 pm MDT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnrebell1 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Definitely good to have new editors, and new/improved (especially cited!) content. Welcome to Wikipedia too...at least the "getting started editing" and "learning wiki syntax tricks" headaches go away on their own after a while. DMacks (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if I created any extra work for you by undoing the recent IP longevity sock/vandal edits. I was just trying to revert the articles back to whatever state they were in before they edited. Cheers, Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Argh, they just hopped IPs gain....Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Not your fault...popped up on my radar and I started fixing before I saw the extent of the history. I protected one of its popular targets. Doesn't appear simple range-blockable, but may be edit-filterable. DMacks (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure I tried to nail down a range before but it was too wide of a net. It's certainly no fun playing whack-a-mole, but at least they're predictable and therefore easy to lock down in relatively short order. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Re proposed deletion of Nowhere Man (Green novel). I have provided excerpts of reviews and their sources on the talk page and will update the article by 31 August. Thanks for the courtesy of letting me know about the proposed deletion. Cheers dinghy (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi!

I'm a curator for Arader Galleries in NYC. We preside over the world's leading collection of rare atlases & maps, prints, books, natural history watercolors, Americana etc and we recently uncovered the copper plates used for Richard Rummell's landscape portraits of America's leading universities around the turn of the 20th century. We own all of the original plates, and are in the process of re-striking and re-printing the images as they were printed in the early 20th century. I noticed that Brown University uses the Rummell View on their wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BrownUniversity-Campus1908.png), and it struck me that each of these universities could certainly benefit from having a beautifully detailed landscape view of their campus 100 years ago to correspond with any historical sections of the page.

The only issue is that I haven't contributed to wikipedia before, and I don't intend to make any other contributions aside from this in the near future. However, I'm unable to upload photos without confirmed or autoconfirmed status. I noticed that you're an academic and thought you might be able to confirm me for this purpose alone?

I can assure you that we are the true owners of the original Rummell plates and have every right to photograph and add them. We simply believe they would enhance the quality of each corresponding page, and would add an interesting new dimension to the views currently on display at our gallery in New York (which is free and open to the public seven days a week).

Thank you!

Daniel Brunt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrunt122 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a very interesting set of materials! I'll check into various options for you and respond with more details soon. DMacks (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Dmack- I rewrote my edit to the JDS article. You were right in that my post was not neutral. I have only posted what I know to be fact because I was directly involved. I also posted something from facebook but I note that it is from facebook and it is clearly opinion. I think that it should be fine now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2012anonymous2012 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for deleting my page. Ya I know it was small because I WASNT DONE WITH IT. I appreciate everything you do here at WIKIPEDIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapperdude130 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to recreate it when you have time to write a stub or short article that meets the minimal standards for existing. As it was, it failed to do so and I was unable even when I looked myself to find evidence that it would be able to either. DMacks (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

CC:User talk:Materialscientist
The shared educational IP in question seems to be very prolific in making edits (around 50 on june 22).
The edits are mostly good faith (or at least appear to be). Most of the information is correct and relevant.
however:

• The language is <rant> atrocious </rant>.
• spelling is shoddy (even by my standards :P )
• many edits are are plain irrelevant e.g. [4] [5]. or they cover some recent (interesting) developments phrased in a totally mystifying manner[6].
• Many of the edits seem to be additions of facts that touch upon but do not add to the article.

I think it is just one or two enthusiastic students who are responsible for most of the edits. The changes made need to be carefully examined to get the useful stuff out of the chaff and it is quite a tedious affair. Both of you (and me) may have made reverts were some salvaging might have been possible.

Is there any way to convince the students to register? Should we? How to convey the need for

• Sourcing
• Language and spelling
• no information dumps. only relevant stuff

without going against WP:bite and the "be bold in editing"?

I'd greatly appreciate your thoughts.
Staticd (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, adding also that they do not add cites for any of their contributions either. Some of the writing is sooo bad I can't even tell if the content is correct. Without cites, I can't verify the meaning to help me decide if it's correct (biochemistry isn't my specialty) and/or how to improve the content to make it more sensible and flow into the existing article. They also went on a similar spree late-June/early-July each of the previous two years and other spates giving a similar "end-of-semester project" feel. Even landed on WP:AN/I. Sad they are so hit'n'run, I'm not sure when the WP:AGF:WP:V balance tips to undo-on-sight per WP:COMPETENCE. Might be useful to get a WP:AMBASSADOR who knows Japanese (and is experienced in dealing with class-project situations) to try to find some faculty contact info and/or put a native-language strong warning about this on their talk-page. I assume the situation will recur in 6 or 12 months and want something available ASAP for then. DMacks (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the delay. was searching for a contact email. got the mailserver from contact info in a paper published by a faculty and prepended 'admin@'. hope that this will work. What do you think? Any changes/suggestions?

[email protected], [email protected]

Respected Sir/Madam, Warm Greetings.

I am an english wikipedia editor (http://en.wikipedia.org). Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

It has come to the notice of the regular editors of wikipedia that every year(2009,2010,2011) in the month of june a large number of changes are made to wikipedia from the IP 202.249.50.60. We are given to understand that this IP belongs to The Tokyo university of Pharmacy and Life Science. The pattern of these changes suggests that it is part of a semester project/ academic work (most probably by undergraduates).

We are very happy that students of your institutes are taking interest in wikipedia; however, many of the edits do not follow wikipedia guidelines.

We would like to discuss this with the faculty responsible for this project to enhance the quality of the edits.

Please forward this email to the faculty of the university.

Thanking you, Yours respectfully,

Maybe en editor who speaks japanese/ lives in tokyo can be roped in? before sending of mails on behalf of wikipedia to a university, should this be run past an admin notice board or something?

Staticd (talk) 06:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(bump) Have you sent it/Do I/should it be? Staticd (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I left a note at Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors. DMacks (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hell, they are just trying out their AI pattern matching information extraction engine, which they programmed as term project, and it extracts info from literature/research abstracts and spills it into Wiki, where it sees fit. Given the typical semantic shortcomings of contemporary AI this frequently leads to hits, which merely touch on the subject, but do not bring systematic progress in the discussion of the topic at hand, other than stuffing it out with associatively related factoids. Much the same way as many Wiki articles are sourced, by editors without semantic understanding of what they are reading and doing. Or they are using such search engines too and are brought up to blindly trust them. Or, scary, they are AI avatars themselves. 70.137.137.56 (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Help desk#Blocked from editing own talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Have reinserted proper link for dead ref in proper place. Problem was, that refs were misrepresented. Regarding the BNF link you restored "Alprazolam-British national Formulary", this is a problematic ref because it is only freely accessible fom the UK and some developing countries. The statement for which it was the ref is still supported by the second given ref. Should be ok now, but it is not usable from the US. I have taken the effort to really proofread against the refs and remove misrepresentations. Please do not undo this on grounds of "plausible" sounding statements. To edit that you have really to open each ref and read it against the statement. That is what I have done. It takes more than the usual plausibility checks. 70.137.129.223 (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping keep the information correct. I undid edits that you stated were "removal of dead links". Sorry if other changes made in those specific edits also got undone. However, if content was removed because it was only sourced to deadlinks (rather than not not matching stated live links), then no, I'm not sorry for assuming good-faith on behalf of whoever added it when the link was live:) DMacks (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, what seemingly happened (assuming good faith) was that somebody wanted to emphasize the danger of abuse and addiction and sprinkled the like changes and statements in between other text. By then the references started shifting w.r.t. the slowly creeping statements and were about something else. This may also have happened by a citation style of: stat1,however stat2 and it has been observed that there is a great danger of stat3 in particular stat4. [ref1][2][3][4][5][6][7]... usw. which makes it indeed very difficult to debug. Other articles had this too and were driving me mad. However there is the case of some editors, who have intentionally misrepresented sources to exaggerate the dangers of old sleeping pills (Temazepam) to a novel super-Heroin, which is being used by the KGB for brainwash purposes and which is being peddled by the Russian mafia around the world to turn our youth into slobbering zombies etc. See Temazepam, there look at revision history, it needed a huge roll back (by Fvasconcellos) to a stable version. These editors now blocked. Other articles have been infested with that kind of misrepresentations as well, seemingly because these pills are controversial and the true facts are not sensational enough. I presume this are anti-psychopharmacy zealots, driven by some religion or cult or other strange beliefs, who knows. All these more controversial articles need continuous proofreading against refs as a sanity check, to avoid feature creep. 70.137.129.223 (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yikes, okay that's a much worse/large pattern I wasn't aware of (didn't look closely at the history of the inclusion). Thanks again for being alert and working to fix the mess! DMacks (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this your edit proves the point. At closer inspection Wiki is full of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tetrahydrocannabinol&diff=prev&oldid=440539489 70.137.129.223 (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, full of something alright. Guess I'll have to be more vigilant at the claimed refs these jokers insert. DMacks (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the jokers, in many cases the citations show a complete lack of semantic understanding on the side of the editors. It is like dealing with hyperactive 6-year olds at the fringe of functional illiteracy. I am frequently under the impression, as if it is AI extracted information from the medline database, with the typical semantic shortcomings of contemporary AI processing. Is it that the typical high school education is so much centered on retention of facts without underlying semantics and logic, that it turns young people into studied idiots? Is it, that they are only drilled to pass multiple-choice tests? Is it that they use sci-calculators, computers and search engines as well as passive learning by TV too much? Or is Wiki an assortment of AI simulated avatars as editors? They frequently barely pass the turing test. Scary. Orderly, the haldol bottle please... cheerio... gluglugluglug... ahhhh now I feel better. 70.137.129.223 (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So I am afraid, even with all good articles, that Wiki doesn't reach the degree of trustworthiness which is required for an encyclopedia. The insidious vandalism tells me, that a few people can make this model experiment of grassroot science and grassroot education fail, or you have to overpolice so much, that it is not fun to edit. The german Wiki has solved that by organized proofreading. Don't know if this is the solution. Even with that it also suffers from imperfections in the citation of sources, only I believe less than the Wiki.en. Too few editors with suitable education have time for that. Unless they are unemployed and do it to hone their brain skills. 70.137.129.223 (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup, articles only work when some editors who care keep then watchlisted (or a similar system) and are vigilant for any changes. For any fact that actually *matters*, readers definitely need to check the cited sources themselves. I think en.wp attracts a much higher level of vandalism (of all sorts, but including intentionally biased statements despite sources) than other languages' and there's definitely less formal/organized monitoring of that problem here. Some of the wikiprojects have tackled certain areas (WP:CHEM cross-checked and now has bots that monitor the infobox data on chemicals). Might be useful to alert WP:DRUGS or similar when you find pharmaceutical articles that seem prone to accumulated problems so Real People can help check it. We can also use semiprotection if certain articles are popular targets for problematic edits (blocks edits by IPs). Earlier this year, en.wp rejected the Flagged Revisions feature, which would allow articles to be flagged as requiring IP edits to be approved by someone else before appearing in the live article. DMacks (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well in the German Wiki all articles need proofreading of IP edits. They have little to no vandalism of the en.wp kind (look mom I am high, how to grind up grannies goof balls, intentionally misrepresented source and biased statements. I know because I do IP edits there too.) But it doesn't solve the other problem, namely that the average honest editor/IP has to take sources at face value as found by search engines, so that there is a clutter of folklore, urban legend and tangential statements and references there too. And then too little people of suitable education have the time and nerves to really debug it and clean up the clutter. So largely Wp is infested with tangential information and their distortions by lack of understanding, even with best intentions. I hope at least the other promise of Wp as an educational project in scientific writing, as I see it, can be kept. I hope young people can take profit from editing here and receiving the guidance of more experienced editors and professionals. 70.137.137.56 (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alprazolam&action=historysubmit&diff=441354478&oldid=441354037

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alprazolam&diff=next&oldid=441354478

Now you see why I think I am dealing with a bot, who is completely blind to semantics? 70.137.153.193 (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

DC Meetup 21 - Who should come? You should. Really.
	DC MEETUP 21 is July 29! This meet up will involve Wikipedians from the area as well as Wiki-loving GLAM professionals. See you Friday! SarahStierch (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I wanted to check with you regarding the removal of the external link which was added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eight_%28card_game%29. The link that I have added is to the only Desktop software which helps users to play the game. I do not benefit (monetarily or otherwise) from this project and the insertion of the link is just so that people who visit the page know that there is a Sourceforge project for this. Kindly clarify why you think that this link is inappropriate. Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vipincherian (talk • contribs) 22:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly an interesting game, and it's great to have an open-source implementation. But I don't see how it meets WP:EL (standard for inclusion of external links) but rather it does appear to meet WP:ELNO (standard against inclusion, specifically links to suppliers and related companies/services). The wikipedia definition of spam/promotion encompasses free as well as for-fee. I ordinarily would not have noticed and probably not cared, but once we have your entry, what's the standard for other entries? I was attracted to it specifically because that section was becoming a link-farm of everyone's own favorite 28 implementation/game-site. That's definitely a problem, so I applied the normal external-links standard to prevent that from happening. If one of them is actually "notable", I would certainly support linking it. WP:WEB and WP:GNG are the formal standards for notability on wikipedia (lots of opensource software meets it, but often requires a bit of research to find the required in-depth independent reviews). DMacks (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

can you tell me what is going on there? I think we had a reasonable discussion and now admins are marching in and make it a dispute on wiki policies? I do not understand. 70.137.134.251 (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We were having a reasonable discussion, but then lots of IPs got us all into something that looked to others like an edit-war (even if we and some of them were discussing). You and I know about proper sourcing, and some others do also (and were having a reasoned discussion about which source to use and how to interpret it, even if ultimately the result should be obvious). But the admin who stepped in didn't know that genesis and didn't know either the players or the topic, so (rightly) immediately quenched the edit-war until xe is able to figure out if there is a clear "correct" vs "blindly inserting false" side (hard to know until you read the talk-page), or if there is simply a content dispute where we have to find a compromise or consensus and get others' views also. There actually are lots of "experts" who regularly edit WP articles, but as usual on en.wp there's no formal "expert as gatekeeper" process and we wind up using lots of time educating others on how our field works. That last isn't a bad result, but sucks that we have to keep doing it in order to get article content fixed. DMacks (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at benzodiazepine overdose and temazepam. IP inserting info which is not supported by ref, e.g. replacing "nitrazepam" and "benzodiazepine" in citations with "temazepam" or replacing citation with something else. He has done that before, requiring deep revert. Hard to spot, looks genuine, unless you proofread against ref. 70.137.158.132 (talk) 07:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. I asked WP:WikiProject Medicine to help keep an eye on them. DMacks (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

good grief, the variable IP sucks, causa sui is thinking there is a a whole stable full of screaming idiots with IPs 70.x.x in an argument with each other and it is all me, me arguing with my clones. 70.137.141.96 (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Causa makes a very good point about how easy it would be to resolve the problem though. In addition, having a fixed identity makes it easier to build up a good reputation, lending weight to your position as an experienced editor when faced with other flash-in-the-pan editors. Sadly, some editors and admins are subtly or even overtly biased against IPs (even ones that do have long histories of being good editors). DMacks (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

SwisterTwister has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can 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.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

here I found an easter egg. Look at my edit of Scopolamine. They cite a secondary ref, review article in BMJ about the use of hyoscine in irritable bowel syndrome. Indeed this review article is talking about hyoscine. But it turns out that THEIR references talk about "scopolamine butylbromide" or "hyoscine butylbromide", which is butylscopolamine bromide, the quaternary base, as in Buscopan, and it has no central effect. However these references name "hyoscine" and "scopolamine" as a synonym of "butylscopolamine" or "scopolamine butylbromide", which is definitely wrong, as they are two different drugs. So the ref and their refs are both wrong! We cannot cite it like that. I removed that. See discussion. Where and how do MDs learn chemistry? Shudder. I will not see a doctor anymore. 70.137.141.96 (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

See also here for example of their raw material for meta analysis. They call hyoscine butylbromide "hyoscine"

http://www.labdominguez.com.ar/informes/nulite/articulo.pdf 70.137.141.96 (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As you can see they talk about "hyoscine 30mg" and "hyoscine 40mg" in Table 1. This would result at least in one week of delirium if they really had used hyoscine, more likely in a coma followed by one week of delirium. 70.137.141.96 (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

National Archives Backstage Pass - Who should come? You should. Really.
	On Saturday, August 6, the National Archives is hosting a Wikipedia meetup, backstage pass tour, and edit-a-thon in College Park, Maryland. Meet staff and fellow Wikipedians, go behind the scenes at the National Archives, help digitize documents, and edit together! Dominic·t 21:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at the Conflict of interest noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have some information. You are invited to comment at the relevant thread. Thank you.
MakeSense64 (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This is to let you know that I've named you as a disputant on Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Alprazolam. causa sui (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have my finger on the block button here [7] but thought I should run it by someone else who is familiar with the situation. What do you think? causa sui (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd let that one go (rude but in my mind I was thinking even ruder since it was reverting a long-term abuse pattern--offsetting penalties in this case). But certainly a data-point for future actions. DMacks (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble. Here is your reward for correcting my mistake and putting up with my stupidity.

TheBradford Reward of Awesomeness —Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC).

Thanks. Let me know if you need any further help (we were all new once, and there are lots of obscure traps here!). DMacks (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a reminder that the National Archives Backstage Pass is tomorrow at 11 am. National Archives-themed chocolates and temporary tattoos await! Also, historical documents. :-) Please see the meetup page for updated information on transportation, security, and other other event details. Dominic·t 22:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

99.244.95.122 , this user is only a vandalism user . If you take a look of either his talk page or his contributions, he is such an intransigent person. So kindly block him permanently at least from editing Ajith kumar article by a tired wiki contributor . Thank you The wind or breeze 16:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The wind or breeze (talk • contribs)

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

He's on my watchlist and I will block if he does it again. DMacks (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

If I remove the links entirely from the previously submitted article does that allow the page to be accepted?

CAPA

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Capa aviation (talk • contribs) 06:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it. Please see WP:FIRST and WP:USERPAGE for some hints on getting started with wikipedia, and WP:COI and WP:CORP on the specific issues. DMacks (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Уважаемый коллега!

Извините, что пишу на русском языке, поскольку, к сожалению, не владею английским.

Посылаю Вам новый вариант статьи AXIOMATICS OF NATURE подходящий для Wikipedia.

Предлагаемая статья излагает содержание моей давно опубликованной книги АКСИОМАТИКА ПРИРОДЫ (1999 - 2009), освещаемое сайтом: http://sites.google.com/site/axiomaticsofnature/. Поэтому авторские права я не нарушаю.

== AXIOMATICS OF NATURE, MEASUREMENTS AND JUSTICE ==

The proposed axiomatics proved the general theorem of accuracy (that simplifies the discovery truths of nature and the refutation of false ideas): all accurate ideas – function of the seven primary ideas: particle, rapidity, length, limit, division, one, less.

This fundamental truth has helped to revise the known laws and discover the unknown that explain the reality: from the particles spiral of atoms (and complete periodic table of their masses) to the postulates of reason which substantiated the ideology of etalon Constitution and reasonable of economics, which realizes the formula of true cost (sum of the value and good).

Also been discovered the exact formulas of the measured quantities (mass, time, velocity, pressure, charge, voltage, temperature, etc.) which justified the universal way of measuring in the system of standards (to the power of length), including the etalon of value.

This axiomatic theory, which changed the foundations of natural and social sciences, is addressed to specialists in the field of mechanics, physics, mathematics, metrology, chemistry, economics, philosophy, law and all striving for the harmony of true world-view.

Mark S. Eidelman. Axiomatics of nature – true foundations of Science (encyclopaedia of truths).– St. Petersburg: Journal AXIMATICS OF NATURE, 2009. ISBN 978–5–9900123–9–4

1. Introduction.

2. Methodology.

3. Primary words.

4. Primary definitions.

5. Axioms (primary laws) of nature.

6. Consequences.

 6.1. About matter and movement of the masses.

 6.2. Anthropic system of standards.

 6.3. About mathematical generalizations.

 6.4. About thinking the mater.

 6.5. Errors of science.

1. Эйдельман М.С. Аксиоматика природы – истинные основания науки (энциклопедия истин). 16 изд., исп. и доп. С-Петербург: НУ “Журнал АП”, 2009. ISBN 978–5–9900123–9–4

2. Эйдельман М.С., Фрадлин Б.Н. О методологических постулатах и критериях истинности фундаментальной аксиоматической теории. Тезисы докл. Всес.научной конф. по истории науки и техники, посвящ. 125-летию со дня рожд. В.И. Вернадского (Одесса, 18-21 апр.1988).

3. Эйдельман М.С. Способ измерения времени и индикаторное устройство часов (варианты). Патент № 2050572 Рос. Федерация: опубл. 20.12.1995. Бюл. № 35. 1с. ил.

3. Эйдельман М.С. Устройство измерения линейной скорости. Патент № 2085952 Рос. Федерация: опубл. 27.07.1997, Бюл. № 28. 2с.: ил.

4. Эйдельман М.С. Естественный эталон массы, обоснованный закономерностью природы, и массоизмерительное устройство. Патент № 2139505 Рос. Федерация // опубл. 10.10.1999. Бюл. № 28 (т. II). 2с. ил.

5. Эйдельман М.С. Универсальный способ измерения. Патент № 2139544. Рос. Федерация // 10.10.1999. Бюл. № 28 (т. II). 2с. ил. С.349–350.

6. Эйдельман М.С. Аксиоматика природы, измерений и справедливости [сайт].–/ URL: http://sites.google.com/site/axiomaticsofnature/. 2010

7. Эйдельман М.С. Постулаты и теоремы точности.–/Научно-энцикл. портал Russika.Ru/.– /http://russika.ru/sa.php?s=547.

: Mark (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)