User talk:DMacks/Archive 14

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.

There is somebody faster than I... -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the heads-up about the village pump discussion. "Exasperated" is a pretty accurate way to describe my attitude towards an editor with things like this [1] in his list of contributions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know avout this action at the adin notice board. I would rather not comment this personal attack unless this is required by protocol. I stand behind my CSD requests and will follow up at Xfd with policy laden arguements. I also plan to look further into this user's past activities - since some large parts of of it may be in violation of WP policies .OrenBochman 08:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You're not required to respond (whether or not it's beneficial to respond is obviously dependent upon many specifics of the situation, about which I know nothing in this case). DMacks (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear DMacks, I hope you are well. I have recently attempted to update the content of the Ahmadiyya Wikipedia page and I have found that a particular user keeps undoing my referenced additions. Rather than seeking to discuss these additions in any kind of constructive way the content is simply removed. I am really not sure what I am doing wrong or if I am doing something wrong. Our mutual friend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Altetendekrabbe seems decided upon not allowing constructive and productive additions to this article. I would request mediation on this issue and the return to the additions that I have made. I would also like Altetendekrabbe to engage in some sort of discussion regarding this as he is currently not discussing his reasons for removing content. I do not believe the page should be blocked, as their is no requirement to do this. Failing this I would greatly appreciate information on the process for escalating my concerns. As you will see I have constructively commented in detail on the talk page and this is simply ignored and content removed. Should I report the user Altetendekrabbe, are they doing something wrong in needlessly protecting an article? I would appreciate mediation of some sort on the value of the changes I have made. Kind regards (Steeringly (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC))

I don't have time to mediate this one. You are correct to (try to) discuss it on the talk-page. However, you must not use that as a good-hand/bad-hand while simultaneously edit-warring it--the alternative to locking the page is blocking you (and maybe some others) for disrupting the article. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for some next steps. DMacks (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I will not take the threat of blocking me as a negative for my attempt at contributions to Wikipedia, as i'm sure that is not intended. Can you recommend someone who does have the time to mediate this, rather than simply blocking the page. Kind regards (Steeringly (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC))

Dear DMacks as we appear to have reached community consensus on the talk page of Ahmadiyya would you mind removing the block on the page? Kind regards (Steeringly (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC))

I see ongoing discussion, so there could be more wordsmithing as a result; and I'm not even sure I see consensus (but I didn't look very hard because still ongoing). When things wind down, you (or someone else) can use the {{editrequested}} tag to propose the exact wording to use, and it will go into a queue that all admins read. DMacks (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, DMacks. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

thx DMacks (talk) 13:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

i see you are a well established admin so i am ok with that but i feel you are going a bit too far deleting a user talk page of a user that does happen to egsist and as it happens i know this user is of the Jewish faith and was attempting to add the userbox also i happen to be aware that is not seen as incorrect to edit a users userpage that asked me privily to establish his userpage. Thankyou--Calu2000 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You did not use a userpage template. You used an article-space template that clearly states that it is for articles about Jewish topics, and this on-wiki behavior is the basis for your frankly quite poor track record here. DMacks (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings. (This invitation sent because you signed up as a member of WP:UWTEST) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Walnut Creek Intermediate.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

DMacks is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

Semi-annual "force myself to spend some quality time off-wiki". If you have any urgent wikipedia-administrative needs, talk to another admin. If you have any urgent spiritual needs, talk to your bar-tender. DMacks (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Have a good one! Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Feel nice and refreshed. DMacks (talk) 04:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello - I'm very new at producing a wiki page and would like another go at making a page for client of mine. How can I proceed from here?

Thank you! Stacie Miller Geer (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

See WP:FIRST. DMacks (talk) 04:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I have previously shortterm blocked User:84.61.149.75 as I was not sure if it is a fixed IP or not. Seems like it is at least sticky - do you mind if I extend the block or will you? Agathoclea (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to extend. DMacks (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe you have deleted the wikipedia page for my client Raje Shwari. She is a recording artist with a discography that includes working with the likes of Timabaland, Jay-Z, and Pharell. She is now releasing new music and we want a wikipedia page with her discography, biography, and website link. Will you be able to recover the original page so I can update the information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaynah2023 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

She does not sound like she is yet notable enough--I can recover it, but it does not sound like it would be a viable page so we'd both be spending our time accomplishing nothing--see WP:UPANDCOMING vs WP:BAND. A better use of your time would be to read WP:COI to decide if this is an appropriate article for you to be writing at all. DMacks (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the vandalism from my talk, and thanks for blowing him out the airlock afterwards. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I deleted a message at Talk:Fluoride toxicity where some outraged editor is trying to expose the name of an editor (Yobol). The disclosure should probably be removed permanently since one should not name names. Can you help? --Smokefoot (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's being dealt-with. DMacks (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Why did you feel that the Zeritca Inc. page warranted deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.216.226 (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I concurred with User:Danlaycock's tagging, as the deletion-message says, "Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Please see WP:CORP and WP:FUTURE. I'm fairly sure that editor also left several notes and links to information on User talk:Blackjacket401 (editor who did most of the writing of that page). DMacks (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I saw those, but nothing in the article was in any way biased, and the reason the company is becoming noteworthy is because it is launching products and operations in Southern California. Noteworthiness is a process and things become noteworthy over time and wikipedia helps to give information to people who are curious about it. I have talked to over 20 people who asked me what Zertica Inc. does. I would like to be able to refer them to its wikipedia page along with other online sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.216.226 (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia by its own policy requires that entities already be actually notable, not becoming so and will be very soon, and no part of its mission is to provide information or other support to enable that to happen. DMacks (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi I see Gerry O'Neill was deleted. I can confirm he was a wreslter under the name gary bware. yes he lives in ontario, and yes he did host wrestlenight in flordia...you dont have to be there to host a radio show you know. \ He is co-founder of kocosports. the wiki page info on him was all true. How do I know this..he is my husband. please re add him to the wiki page for famous people from omagh thanks wendy oneill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.65.118 (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerry O'Neill. DMacks (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears that you left an unsigned comment on the page I linked to. Sign your comments by adding ~~~~ at the end of every comment you added. Ekren (T | C | L) 09:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. It's fixed now.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up for you: User:DMaclcs was reported at WP:UAA and it seems like it might be an attempt to impersonate your username. Maybe you can have a look and see if this is the sock of someone you recognize. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe it's DMacks's own doppelganger account? Anyway, it's something to keep an eye on. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! It's definitely not an alt-account of mine, and I don't recognize his edit-pattern off-hand. DMacks (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably blockable anyway due to the disruptive creation of numerous bogus templates. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

An anonymous user keeps blanking a section of the zoophilia article -- he wrote an explanation on the talk page, so I decided to see if the content was true. When I realised it was true, I added a source. But after adding the source, the anonymous user came back and reverted the content again, this time blanking out an additional paragraph and removing an image with no explanation. Since I don't want to endlessly revert vandalism, I'm not sure what to do. Maybe the article should become protected. MarkB40n (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Salmonella Shigella Agar is tagged as a g12, but no source listed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 10:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that you deleted the page 'ECFiber.net', and was wondering what caused you to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.25.158.7 (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The page was written as an articles-for-submission, so it should be filed in the articles-for-submission queue but it was created in the main article-space. User:Dcshank appears to do a lot of work on the AFC queue, so he moved it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ECFiber.net (where it still is now), but apparently didn't leave a note for the editor of that page about it. I was cleaning behind the page-move action. DMacks (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it was my mistake. Usually a redirect is left behind, so you have a link to the new page, but since it was a move from Main space to AfC, the redirect should be deleted. That broke your link. I will try to remember to leave a message when I break a link. Sorry.  :- ) Don 15:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, User:Nagarjuna198 (contributions) has been altering spelling and moving pages of Telugu articles. its unnecessary to move the articles. And there is a lot of difference between Antham and Antam, according to the language when considered. Also if you Google the films he moved, majority of the results are spelled with "tha" instead of "ta". Regardless of the technicality, its better not to move the articles in order to maintain consistency through out the web. Pls look into the matter. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC).

I don't know anything about the language, but I know that IMDB is not considered a fully reliable source (appears to be the basis of at least some of his choice of transliterations), especially when other sources disagree. He appears to have stopped moving for now, but if he restarts, give him a firm warning about WP:RM and the general importance of getting others involved in discussion when there is a dispute. He's been bold, he's been reverted--so it's controversial and it's up to him to get consensus per WP:BRD. DMacks (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Dmacks, I noticed your self-reversions on the file above and on the uploader's Talk page. I'm curious. Obviously the picture on Wikipedia is a cropped version of the one here, but did the uploader say that was the source? I didn't see it. I was going to tag the article as a possibly unfree file, but, per WP:IUP, I decided to give them a chance to explain. I also noticed in the uploader's history that they uploaded other images where they acknowledged they weren't free, which meant to me that they didn't necessarily misrepresent ownership. I have no doubt you're more knowledgeable in this area than I am, so any light you want to shed on these issues, please do.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

While I was writing the above, you tagged the picture (along with some others). You just did it differently, which explains the reversions.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup:) I'm not certain that the images are not uploader's own, so I went with a slightly slower process to give uploader and others a chance to weigh in. It's pretty common for editors to say "it's my own" if they merely found it on the web and uploaded it themselves (or made some retouching and therefore claim that the result is therefore their own). Especially common for celebrities, and especially-especially for Bollywood:( DMacks (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Should I have just tagged it rather than asked for an explanation? Tagging it still gives him a chance to address the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Anything that alerts the uploader and sets a timetable for further action if not satisfactorily explained is fine. WP:PUF is designed for disputing claimed-as-free or self-work status, whereas WP:CSD is for images that are more obvious copyvio or for misuse of images that are claimed as nonfree. Twinkle has options to tag either of those two cases and automatically notify the uploader. By listing it at PUF or CSD, it queues the concern for others to see and process at certain deadlines if no explanation is provided and I forget to check back. For this editor, the pattern I saw affected all of his uploads, so there's obviously a misunderstanding there of image-use/licensing policy, was easy enough to file it in the usual queues for handling that (and let others also keep an eye on future edits). DMacks (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation, very helpful. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi DMacks. I was wondering if you could do something about Ian Schrager. If you're not familiar with him, Schrager was the co-founder of Studio 54, went to prison in the early 1980s for tax evasion and obstruction of justice (relating to Studio 54), then became a hotelier.

The article has three big problems:

1. The entire Career section is written like a public relations or advertising piece for Schrager's businesses. It sounds like it was actually taken directly from press releases or advertising brochures. There is also a lot of very subjective and fan language. These are some quoted phrases, as examples: "he developed the revolutionary idea", "The club was exciting and always doing something different and unexpected", "Studio 54 took the nightclub scene by storm", "To this day, it is considered the most significant and famous nightclub of all time", "Large video installations lining the dance floor were undeniably powerful", "Schrager had on the pulse, keen instincts", "the hotel lobby became a new kind of gathering place for hotel guests and New York City residents alike", "Schrager's grasp of and commitment to the modern lifestyle", "Schrager has also created two groundbreaking residential properties" and "The second brand, yet to be announced, will be a new kind of luxury brand for modern people"

2. There is a glaring omission: there is absolutely no content about Schrager being arrested, convicted and being in prison, which made national headlines. Therefore, it is very important content. I looked at the talk page, which seems to make clear that his conviction and prison time had at some point been included in the article, but was apparently removed without an administrator or experienced editor noticing. To verify the prison claim, here are six sources: [2][3][4][5][6][7].

3. Most of the article is unsourced.

I feel that most of the content in this article should be removed. I think the article should be narrowed down heavily to just the basic, relevant info about Schrager: he co-founded Studio 54, went to prison, and became a hotelier. Period. All of the sales and promotional language and descriptions of his businesses - which is most of the Career section - should be removed. I am bringing this to your attention because I prefer to never touch an article that has so much inappropriate (and missing) content. I'd rather have have an expert like you decide what should be done. Thanks! --76.189.98.15 (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC) 05:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The activities of Sebastio Venturi are being discussed here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello DMacks. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of JavaTC, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to software. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I've corrected it now. Thanks for the note. SmartSE (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

But it is a true story — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPGandRingo (talk • contribs) 09:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH falls in the face of WP:V and WP:BLP. DMacks (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, DMacks. You have new messages at Jawadreventon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jawadreventon (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you please check contributions of User:Solhjoo? Thank you.--Meymano (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the topic to have an opinion about what's "right" here. I recommend you pick one of the pages in this dispute and start a discussion on its talk-page. Then others will be able to help figure out what the article should say, and help resolve the edit war you two seem to be having. DMacks (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I know, but i wanted you to check his all edits. He has just deleted sources or parts related to Kurds.No need to be expert to see that. --Meymano (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I undid a little after looking at some of the given sources, but in general he gave edit-summaries raising concerns about the validity of the refs for supporting the tex (or claiming alternate refs that support an alternate perspective). That sounds like a legitimate content-dispute. Again, you need to talk to him first directly about your concerns before jumping for others to help you. DMacks (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, DMacks. You have new messages at Jawadreventon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jawadreventon (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You deleted this persons page now he is dead. Shame on you

http://announce.jpress.co.uk/4052325?s_source=jpno_leed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.114.30 (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not delete the page (see [8]), wikipedia is not a memorial to the deceased (see WP:NOT#MEMORIAL), and I doubt that wikipedia bears moral responsibility for his dying in the future (with respect to the deletion). DMacks (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No you might not have deleted it but you were up there voting for deletion, he is already dead. You should be stripped of your editing rights you nasty piece of work

I guess I forgot to look into my crystal ball during that discussion. You're welcome to start a discussion about reviving the article if you think you can start obeying our civility policy, or else you can give up on the topic now. Either way, you are forbidden to continue this discussion in the manner you have, here or anywhere on wikipedia--consider this your only warning. DMacks (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm still learning about image usage, so maybe you can enlighten me. I realize that not everything that is on Wikipedia, or even Commons, really should be there. The Allan Shivers image you removed from Allan Shivers Library and Museum was something I got from the page Allan Shivers. As far as I know it's not on Commons. If it shouldn't be on the library page, should it be on the Allan Shivers page? The library is something Allan Shivers himself created. So, since I need to learn more about images, can you give me the reasoning behind why it was removed from the museum, but remains on the Allan Shivers page? Thanks for your time. Maile66 (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure! Image licensing is one of the aspects that cam be really confusing due to various legal and wikipedia policy issues. In general, wikipedia articles use "free" (open licensed) images--images whose license allows us (and anyone else) to do pretty much anything we want with them, including redistribute, sell, etc., as long as credit or backlinks to the source are given. As a result, those images are usable anywhere (any article, etc.) and allow readers to reuse of wikipedia content freely also outside of wikipedia (as free as the articles themselves). Commons is a nice centralized place to store these sorts of images too, because that way other languages' wikipedias can use them. Some images aren't free however, so we cannot use them as we desire, but instead have to follow whatever licensing terms the author has set. And there are rare cases where one can use a non-free image in other ways based on specific legal situations. Putting a non-free image in an article immediately makes that article itself less free because only "part of the article" can be reused freely. And commons is completely prohibited from hosting non-free content, even if there were to be a legal or policy-based exception for its use on some specific wikipedia article.

The license for the image of this person is not completely open (it prohibits some uses that wikipedia's open licensing requires to be allowed)--you can click on the image (or any image) to read its specific licensing statement. As a result, its use has to comply withnon-free content policy for every specific place the image would be used. One main requirement is that the image really does add something substantial and non-replaceable to the article (NFCC#1). The common situation is an image of the item that is the exact topic of the article itself, so this person's image is usable in the article about him. However, the library article isn't about him, and seeing an image of him makes the article look nicer but doesn't add substantial encyclopediac value to the content. On the other hand, an image of the library definitely would be an encyclopediac addition to the article about the library there. Therefore, the non-free image of the person is not non-replaceable in this context and fails NFCC#1. If one were reading the library article and wanted to learn more about the person, one would easily go to that person's page (wikipedia is great because each topic has its own page rather than a monolithic "all different things related to a topic" page) and see there his picture. DMacks (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2012

Thank you. This was informative and easy for me to understand. Maile66 (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

"Masterpiece Museum" Edit-a-Thon at the Smithsonian American Art Museum

The Smithsonian American Art Museum and Wikimedia DC present the "Masterpiece Museum" Edit-a-Thon. Drawing from their vast vaults of art, the caretakers of the Smithsonian American Art Museum have meticulously drawn forth canvas jewels to import into Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia articles. The museum directors and staff are excited about this project, and would love to have experienced Wikimedians help in the effort! Kirill [talk] 17:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC) When August 10, 2012, 10 AM - 4 PM Where Smithsonian American Art Museum, 7th & F St NW, Washington, DC Signup Details & signup

Hey, thanks for helping me out on Heavy Rain. It looks like some people have also migrated to Dark Souls. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Zotted. Thanks for the vandal-tracking! DMacks (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on User talk:Fiferoofing, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Vincent Liu (something to say?) 13:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe Mrrooftop just violated WP:3RR. I've tried inviting them to the talk page to discuss the issues with the edits but I think all the warning templates, 3RR templates, and file issue templates have probably overwhelmed them. I don't generally like resorting to a block but it looks like they wait us to wait with the misplaced {{hangon}} template but haven't figured out where to discuss the issue. Maybe you can get their attention so that we can talk it out, with a message and/or a short block. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

He can spend the next 24h reading the information there... DMacks (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Anna Sbr has now appeared and I'm guessing it's a meat puppet. They've reverted your last revert and I'm on my 3rd revert in 24 hours. It appears that they're promoting Schnitzel Records Ltd. which The Moons are signed to. I've started sniffing around other bands signed to the label and I'm seeing the same sort of activity from what I also believe to be meat puppets. I'm thinking someone from the label is either directing or suggesting that their bands create WP pages such as Peasant (artist) being created by the band's GM, Chris.radwanski.

Unless you have any other ides, I'm going to start an investigation like this one to get a good idea as to the extent of the problematic editing and possible puppetry. I may write Schnitzel Records a quick email to try an initiate an actual conversation with them but as they've ignored every other attempt at communication, I don't see it being successful. OlYeller21^Talktome 13:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup, obvious puppets. I tagged Peasant (artist) for CSD#A7. Let me know if you need any input for SPI or cross-checking editors'/pages' deleted histories. Probably all of the images on the record-label's page fail NFCC (not sure if the underlying editors have a more widespread problem than that), I'll be back later today and can tag them unless someone/somebot beats me to it. DMacks (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops, fixed, thanks for letting me know. Graham87 08:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me. I copied the source from mercury (element), which used to make the same claim on Hg(III). You've removed it there already, so I've deleted Hg(III) from the infobox ({{infobox mercury}}) and list of oxidation states of the elements. Double sharp (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi DMacks,

I do not know reason why my recent article about Ondo Advocacy group was deleted. Could you please undo your deletion or pinpoint the area of the article that causes the deletion in the first place for amendment.

I look forward to your response.

Regards --Ghanainfos (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Virtually every bit of content was unacceptable. Quite simply, it was written as a promotional piece (failing WP:NPOV policy, see also WP:ARTSPAM). The WP:YFA (sorry for all the acronyms...the pages themselves are actually written in normal English!) to learn about our encyclopedia and how it is different from a corporate website, and probably also WP:COI to see why it might be so hard for you in particular to write about this topic. I see these pointers were already posted to your user-talk page, so please actually read them carefully since it's pretty clear that many editors all agree your article had the same types of problems. DMacks (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi DMacks.

This is my first post on wikipedia. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's graduation year is 1975 and not 1974 as mentioned on wikipedia. 7th December 1975 was a Sunday and I could not see what you found objectionable in my edits. His graduation certificate is up for the world to view on the link that I'd posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgd19751207 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

(let's keep this discussion on your talk-page to make it easier to follow; I'll respond there). DMacks (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:LegalShield logo.gif. 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 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).

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. DMacks (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

of User:User:MiklosMike - please can you check the page history of ‪User:Betty Logan‬? I think this is more than mere vandalism, perhaps a compromised account. pablo 09:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The page was a bit of vandalism/rant by MM created at User:BL; the latter moved it to User:User:MM. That move makes sense ti me (user posting to his own page) and is in agreement with BL's edit summary (all assuming BL meant User:MM rather than User:User:MM). Is there other evidence I'm not seeing (or mis-interpretting)? DMacks (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean - it just seemed really odd to me, but you're probably right. pablo 10:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Defintely odd indeed--no harm in asking (and thanks for vandal-tracking!) DMacks (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:LegalShield logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please remove my rollback privileges User:TheGoofyGolfer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.218.41.166 (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please login as that user so we know you're really TheGoofyGolfer.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Situation resolved. DMacks (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi DMacks, This is the real User:TheGoofyGolfer speaking. I don't know why but this IP user for some reason has taken to impersonating me and this is not the first time, so I'm putting a request on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to try and get this resolved with appropriate action. Thank you for blocking them. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! If you have any inkling what other editor might be involved (someone whose edits you reverted or tagged for speedy-deletion?) who might have this grudge, it might be useful for figuring out if there's any more cleanup to do. DMacks (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

hi!. You are right but this one is free[9]. and it's in the public domin.--Neogeolegend (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It is non-free according to the license statement (and rationale/details) at File:Adolf Hitler at Berchtesgaden.ogg. DMacks (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

okay i understand! thanks.--Neogeolegend (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hah, cool! Thanks for the link! Zagalejo^^^ 02:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for dealing with User:Ilovethe2000s. Kindly, Anderson - what's up? 08:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, can you please tell me why you deleted my references to Jeffrey Smith's book on GMO and also the lines about Proposition 37? Thanks -Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisk2000 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote in my WP:EDITSUMMARY, "rv cherry-picked source (WP:NPOV balance?) and WP:CRYSTAL of future political events." DMacks (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand about Prop 37 but how are the following in violation of policies: 1) Mentioning of Jeffrey Smith's book. It is a book that is the international best seller on GMOs translated into 40+ languages. How is that cherry picking? My job is not to present every side of an issue. I am presenting a fact, a source. Somebody else can refer to a book that talks about the benefits of GMOs.

2) You also deleted my line about how more than 50 countries require GMO labeling. That is a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisk2000 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

1) As with all articles on controversial topics, we're required to keep them balanced. This article in particular is obviously susceptible to various partisan editors and needs to strike a careful balance. It's obviously great when new information from reliable sources is available, but we actually do have to be careful not to add lots from one position, or we risk tilting the balance too much. We're also not trying to put together an exhaustive reading-list, and we already appear to have representative major works for each position. Does Smith's book say anything new or different (there's already a mention of industry-affiliated lobbyists later in the article)? On the other hand, if the book actually has received critical acclaim or the author himself is well-regarded as an expert in this area, that would support its inclusion as a reliable source. On the third hand, all sorts of bogus material or sensational fringe theories get widely translated because they're sensational not because the actual content is worthwhile.

A statement about how many countries currently require labeling would be a great addition, if it is supported by a citation to a reliable source (WP:V policy). At first glance, it appeared to be part of an overall presumably-unintentional pattern of your set of edits that tilted the balance of the article (in addition to a concern about verifiability of the statement) with addition of unsupported assertions. DMacks (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like the add the following line and 3 references and want to run it by your first since I don't want to go thru edit/delete process again: "The entire European Union and other countries such as Australia, China, Japan, and Russia require GMO labeling.There are other countries that make GMO labeling voluntary and many other countries have plans to introduce GMO labeling" Reference: http://www.agbioforum.org/v10n1/v10n1a06-gruere.pdf ; and http://www.food.gov.uk/policy-advice/gm/gm_labelling ; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-murphy/dan-quayle-and-michael-ta_b_1551732.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisk2000 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds much better, yes! I didn't read all the refs closely (especially the lengthy AgBioForum, though that does look like a highly reliable source) but I'm not seeing support for "many other countries have plans". All the commentary seems to be about countries that already have mandatory requirements or established frameworks for voluntary labeling rather than specific discussions of doing so in countries that don't already have something. DMacks (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this: "(decline speedy--there is at least one opposed on the MFD"). In the MfD discussion, the nom wanted to delete and the first editor wanted to mark as historic. Only two editors weighed in,[10] and you then declined speedy based on their differing views. I appreciate that and don't see that often enough. When a deletion discussion starts and reaches a point of differing views, its important that no one else take unilateral action against those differing views until the discussion ends (usually in seven days from the XfD listing). After XfD discussions reach a point of differing, I've seen editors add pages to the nom, "withdraw" their nom, and pages speedy deleted, even though that went against the differing views at the discussion. It nice to see someone give due weigh to an ongoing XfD discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I avoid image wars, so I was completely lost on restoring the local file. :-/ So glad someone more image-savvy took care of it, much appreciated! KillerChihuahua^?!? 07:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I am new on Wikipedia. I'd like to know with more details why references that I include in the articles "Polypropylene" and "Methanol" were deleted, in order that I won't make the same mistake in the next contributions. I expect your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafael.japiassu (talk • contribs) 16:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

They did not have substantially useful content themselves or assist in supporting the content in our articles. They did appear to be a not-very-reliable source (susceptible to bias due to their corporate/promotional nature) by virtue of their authorship and overall tone. DMacks (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

See Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, your comment.

I think it is not a polymerization.

It would be

NH₂-R1-NH₂ + COCl₂ + NH₂-R2-NH₂ -> NH₂-R1-NH-CO-NH-R2-NH₂ + 2 HCl

and so forth.

As a side reaction of the formation of diisonitriles NCO-R-NCO also diisonitriles of such chains e.g. NCO-R-CO-NH-R-CO-NH-R-CO-NH-R-NCO would be formed from diamines with phosgene.

Please check if this is plausible.

Also a reaction ...R1-NCO + NH_2--R2... -> ...R1-NH-CO-NH-R2...

seems plausible to me, with the same result, as in the formation of R1-NCO already 2HCl have been removed.

70.137.135.217 (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Formation of urea linkages during the phosgenation step is certainly possible by the condensation reaction you suggest (leading to polyurea it taken to an extreme). However, that's not the kind of structure that the File:MDI isomers.PNG image illustrates. It has an explicit CH₂ between every consecutive aryl ring and each ring having an isocyanate, not "not Methylene diphenyl" (methylene-joined pairs) linked by urea. And if the monomer amines do form urea-like linkages, they would not also have isocyanate groups (would require multiple nitrogen atoms attached to each aryl ring).

I don't see the origin for cyanate esters (the NCO–R group that you describe as an "isonitrile") rather than the isocyanate ONC–R form). However, I do see a way to get the amide linkages you propose as a result: something like a Friedel–Crafts acylation between an isocyanate on one molecule and the aromatic ring on another.

So lots of alternate reactions could happen, some of them leading to polymers (or at least short oligomers), but I have no idea if that is what is meant in the article. DMacks (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry the isonitriles were a blunder of mine, I meant isocyanates and I forgot to invert the order of N, C, O on the ones which were "backward". so these were thought to be OCN-R-NCO. Indeed the result is not what the picture in the article shows. But the result would be a feasible reaction partner for polyols, just like the simple diisocyanates. Thank you. The Wiki editing helps me to improve my chemistry understanding. 70.137.137.124 (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Definitely a great place to learn and discuss! DMacks (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually the polyurea article also talks about copolymers with polyurethanes by such a reaction and about such intermediaries. I believe these articles should go into a little more detail and need a few quotations for reaction mechanism. Wiki is nice as a brain sport. 70.137.137.124 (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

In my edit summaries I always try to explain my arguments, and I really discovered this site in the reference sitography of the books I read (in Italian and not only). If then the others revert me simply writing "never heard", it is a their information problem, not mine. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to discuss it on the talk-page and others will also give their opinions, and then WP:CONSENSUS will control the article. Edit-warring is a prohibited behavior regardless of how "correct" your idea may be and I (or any other administrator) do not choose sides among edit-warriors. DMacks (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, DMacks. You have new messages at Ilovethe2000s's talk page.
Message added 23:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Anderson - What's up? 23:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well caught! I deleted it quickly too after double checking. How did you catch it so fast?Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You have mail. DMacks (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

	Golden timing barnstar!
	You get this barnstar for a golden timing of a difficult CSD (within 3 minutes of creation). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

⋅

Thanks! Awesome animated...um...barnclockstar:) DMacks (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Also this. All's well that ends well. It appears we had a kind of edit conflict when answering questions... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You tagged this file with {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} long ago and I noticed that the file was in a red category. I took it to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 August 21#File:Dragon landing on Mars.jpg to have it settled. You may wish to comment there. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there,

I have now provided an adequate source for the image I posted (File:Miljan Miljanić wiki scan.jpg). Please do not delete the photo.

All the best and thank you for letting me know my source info was not adequate!

Tempo21 (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine now. Thanks for finding the rare images! DMacks (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Hi DMacks, I'd like your opinions at Talk:Demi Lovato#Edit warring over image in infobox, please. Discussion has stagnated there although the image is still being changed quite a bit, and I am trying to get folks to go on record with some opinions and discussion. Thanks in advance for your input! BigNate37_(T) 20:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to moderate that and evaluate consensus in a few days. DMacks (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. BigNate37_(T) 02:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking after Demi Lovato. BigNate37_(T) 15:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! DMacks (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Agha Waqar Ahmad". Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TransporterMan (talk • contribs) 15:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

So what is promotion, telling the world about music that is existing on YouTube and everywhere else on the media world, why do you care about it so much for.

My page has nothing to do with promotion; - it just state facts of artistic values

eddy jacobsen

www.eddy.nu

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddyjacobsen (talk • contribs) 21:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC) and transplanted from userpage by BigNate37_(T) 22:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

What you describe sounds exactly like the definition of WP:SPAM--promoting your own work rather than writing an encyclopedia based on WP:5P. Wikipedia is not a free web-host. DMacks (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Could You please unprotect this page (now he meets notability – he has played in fully professional league). And then move this page, maybe you can also merge the hystory to get that article longer (I know that there is good information in the history)? --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Article moved, history undeleted. Please tag Aleksandrs Čekulajevs (footballer), which is now a redirect, for deletion if appropriate. DMacks (talk) 07:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I think that the redirect could be left. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, can you move Concordia University (Quebec) to Concordia University, someone made a controversial move, and I was trying to restore the old article.--The lorax (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not going to move-war or jump in and take unilateral action without seeing discussion among the involved parties, or take privately-requested action for a topic on the active WP:ANI board. DMacks (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I wasn't sure what was the right course of action to take. Here is the previous discussion.--The lorax (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop changing my work, thanks yay

STOP CHANGING MY WORK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiraleejceazer (talk • contribs) 00:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You should take some time to read WP:5P and decide if you really want to continue. DMacks (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey man, i'm making an honest effort to educate the world on concert venues. it doesn't seem to make sence that you threaten to ban me from editing. the venues i'm listing are very notable. google them. Buttchunker (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:YFA to learn about starting new articles. It has useful tips about what you (as the editor creating an article) should do and include as far as content and sourcing. As someone interested in this area, perhaps you are best positioned to tell us why these are notable. Actually, that's wikipedia policy: an article itself must stand on its explicit claims. "The reader can google it" means "why should we bother having the article if it's just a pointer to google?"--Wikipedia is by policy not just a collection of topics anyone thinks are interesting, for example. If you wish an article to exist, it's up to you to demonstrate that it meets the Wikipedia:Notability requirement--it's not other editors' job to do your work. Educating the world is obviously good, but the only way you can accomplish that on this site is to follow its formal minimal standards for topics and content. Verifiability policy requires that editors who write here themselves include some minimal sourcing to back up their claims. DMacks (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if you have been involved with WFG or not but I have made a few edits that you reverted. I would like to know where your sources prove that WFG is a registered MLM with any state in the US or that you feel it is important to link Managed Wealth Financial with WFG. I would appreciate a response as it is clear that you are active in reverting edits made to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stavasebff (talk • contribs) 00:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't actually know the entity itself (so I'm not colored by an opinion on the subject either way), but I checked for example [11] (one of the refs cited in the article) to verify the statement, which specifically states that it is a pyramid/multilevel-sales organization. The page has a looooong history of editors removing non-complimentary material from the article or posting uncited negative commentary, so it's one of the ones I watch to help prevent WP:NPOV policy problems in both directions. DMacks (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I saw your note here. Do you have a headshot (either head will do)? It's difficult to assess your offer without further information. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

ha! That's only for the bot to know. You? You'll have to buy me dinner first. D"Third Leg"Macks (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

	PWM
	Pulse width modulation exits,if you have no idea kindly do not delete,thanks Ibrarw (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:V based on WP:RS is non-negotiable policy. WP:OR and your own ideas and thoughts are not appropriate for posting here. DMacks (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Dmacks, I got your message about changing my edit to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enantiomer For a reliable source look in any chemistry text book or website about absolute configuration. As a chemist you should be able to clearly see that the R and S are backwards. The left isomer goes clockwise (R) and the right isomer goes counter clockwise (S). Here is a site explaining it: http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Organic_Chemistry/Chirality/Absolute_Configuration,_R-S_Sequence_Rules

Thank you for your time, and I do appreciate you taking the time making sure people don't falsely edit things.

67.10.123.169 (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Joseph Trapasso 67.10.123.169 (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 9/6/2012

For this image-pair, for the image on the left, how are you determining that four substituents are ordered clockwise? The priority ordering I see is "OH" > "COOH" > "CH3" > "H". The H (least significant) is back and other three (most significant to least significant of them) OH → COOH → CH3 are running counterclockwise, which is S per your definition. I drew that structure in ChemDraw, and it labels the central atom as S. DMacks (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

True enough I don't need an excited state. Thanks for catching that.JSR (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you note the section on water treatment in sodium hypochlorite? Portions of it appear to be quite prescriptive.JSR (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed! Good catch. I tagged it. No time to work on fixing it for now though:( DMacks (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Your rewriting looks good. Thanks for working on it. DMacks (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello sir! Actually i have added citation from india today the reliable source i.e., the website stated that gabbar singh has collected 150 crores in 60 days worldwide.There is nothing wrong in that.Please check that url before modifying.Thank you.Raghusri (talk) Raghusri 06:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks for clarifying the key part of that cited ref for me. DMacks (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You have previously commented on the redirect On the genus of a graph. There have been significant changes, including the target, since the nomination was made. You may wish to revisit the discussion and confirm whether or not your previous views remain unchanged. Having been relisted the discussion is now at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 7. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dmacks, you had made this page Swami Nithyananda protected a while back because of excessive vandalism. Now the vandals are back again since the page is opened up and now they are disguising the vandalism more subtly but changing the language of the page to be very negative - going against the tenets of WP:BLP. I have made a request to protect this page. Or even lock it down to the state it was before the protection was removed last time. If you look at he history page you'll see a lot of sock puppetry going on by the few individuals trying to mess the page up Acnaren (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Backstage at the Smithsonian Libraries is part of Wikipedia Loves Libraries 2012, the second annual continent-wide campaign to bring Wikipedia and libraries together with on-site events. Running this fall through October and November, libraries (and archives) will open their doors to help build a lasting relationship with their local Wikipedian community.

Organized by Wikimedia DC, this event will take place on October 12, 2012, and will include new editor training, a "backstage pass" tour of the National Museum of Natural History, and an edit-a-thon. Everyone is welcome to attend!

Kirill ^[talk] 18:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for indefinitely blocking the user who had created a nonsense article! Wikiforyou123 (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, DMacks. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Making choices.
Message added 19:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

You've got mail about making choices, kid! Wikiforyou123 (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, no such email here. DMacks (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a troll. See all other contribs by Wikiforyou123 (talk · contribs). Suspected SPI, too. —Quiddity (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Demand response, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brownout (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a biography of a living person. Not a company or/and technology. All expertise of any kind are not appropriate and applicable to personal page of a living person. You can write or/and change any type of data you consider yourself an expert in, but not when the case is personal bio. The tone of the link you're reffering to is not neutral - it is known as anti-russian, has no proven facts (not a single number of third party expert quote in it). That's why this link has either to be removed, or to be published by the BIO owner - in this case - Eugene Kaspersky.

You have no expertise in this bio page as you are not Eugene Kaspersky nor Noah Shachtman, who's article this link leads to.

Plus - you have no rights or expertise to make changes that are regarding any type of historical refferances, such as KGB refferance - today this organiszation does not exist anymore. It is called Federal Security Service. It means that by changing it back you are a) damaing your reputation b) showing that you are not objective in the matter c) you change personal BIO of a man you don't know and have no authority to judge. As this is PERSONAL BIO. That's why all edits that are destroing personal page can be treated as vanadlism. To decide what's relevant and what's not - is not yours or anyone's decision but the page subject. Who is in this case - not you or me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moralstandart (talk • contribs) 13:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires that we not omit sourced material even if it's unflattering and WP:V takes the editor's opinion and expertise out of the picture. By policy wikipedia is generall not allowed to care what article-subjects think about their article or bend to their wishes about it (see also WP:OWN). You are welcome to seek WP:DR in the standard ways. DMacks (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello DMacks. I recently declined a request for full protection of this article that was submitted at WP:RFPP. I notice that you've edited the article recently. Let me know if you perceive a case for protection of any kind. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

(belately) I don't yet see a need. The long-term situation seems to be occasional whitewashing and insertion of debatably-sourced/unsourced criticism that is quickly handled by various watchlisters. The newbie editors either hit&run or wind up getting discussion going properly at talkpage lately. DMacks (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but all time low has always associated themselves with pop punk, their everything pop punk is about. to not even see that up on the thing was just disruptive. --68.193.238.53 (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS is a pretty strict rule. You removed content that is cited to external sources and replaced it with something that is not. It actually doesn't matter what "they associate themselves" as, since this isn't their own website. DMacks (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking more closely at the refs that *are* given though, there's a long-term problem with many editors changing without citing. I do see independent sourcing for the "pop punk" label, so it's viable to say it...thanks for bringing this problem to light! DMacks (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)