User talk:DMacks/Archive 15

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.

As you used {{csdref-a1}} in an AfD, you are invited to share your thoughts regarding possible deletion of those templates. Thanks, PleaseStand (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vacuum flask, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Implosion (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) 14:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for locking down the Doge of Venice article to prevent the vandalism. The same vandal is making the same edits to Doge and Republic of Venice- could you help with those too? Thanks. 86.26.207.24 (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done both (sorry for the delay, network access has been a little spotty). Let me know if the problem reoccurs or spreads to other pages. Especially if a problem is urgent, you can usually get good response from WP:RFPP if you can give them a sentence or two describing the problem. DMacks (talk) 05:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi :-) there's a message for you on Commons. Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 18:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Weird, thought I had posted a response. Oh well, I did now; thanks for the ping. DMacks (talk) 05:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

another ping :-) Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 20:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I've seen that you have warn IP address user 70.68.46.109, well this user is putting in incorrect information on such pages like Little Nemo: Adventures in Slumberland[1]108.82.4.15 (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi DMacks, how would you feel about lifting the indef semi-protection of BloodRayne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to see if it's still needed. Since it's been three years I'm hoping that the vandals will have given up. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I unprotected it and also BloodRayne (series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Let's hope for the best! DMacks (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, yeah hopefully. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well that didn't last. I just reverted the vandalism that got the article protected in the first place. Web Warlock (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Reprotected. Oh well, at least we know:( DMacks (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

And that's half the battle. Thanks. Web Warlock (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks for keeping an eye on them. DMacks (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spruce Creek High School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Little Shop of Horrors (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) 15:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I was creating an article on Jim Kreisman Insurance Agency, Inc. and had my rough notes in there and you deleted it. I did not publish it, just saved as I was in the process of creating. Why did you delete it? It was my impression that no one would see till I published?

Please mail be a copy of the text, as I spent a lot of time on it.

Also any suggestions on how to edit in private till I am ready for review is appreciated.

InsuranceMexico — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insuranceusmexico (talk • contribs) 15:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I took a look around and was unable to find any evidence or information in the article that this person/company was in any way notable enough for an article (see WP:BIO and WP:CORP). Taken together with your other edits and your username, it appeared your primary purpose here was as some sort of advertisement or similar publicity, which is definitely against wikipedia site policy. Your article can certainly be restored, but will only be worth your time if indeed the person/company actually does have notability. Let me know if that is the case. DMacks (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, see Periodic Table Talk page for the comment about alternative table that I added today. I think that replacement of ADOMAH with compact version of Left Step Table is not an improvement.Drova (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you much for your patience and help on the Ref Desk for Chemistry. I see that you are a chemist; out of curiosity, what's the field looking like in terms of new developments from your perspective? And how do you like it? 75.73.226.36 (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If you were accusing me of vandalism, let me just clarify that I was experimenting and accidentally changed articles of which I reversed afterwards. But consider this perspective, because there was no clearance requirement, I was able to change the article, now how am I suppose to feel assured in the reliability of the topic. At least with semi-protection, there more assurance. I was simply arguing that if lesser topics like "Cat, Dog, Tiger" got it, then "Coffee" should get it too and then I would feel more assurance with the topic. I think that a reasonable argument.

I like the layout and number of articles on Wikipedia but it's susceptibility to vandalism is a bother to me. That’s why I don't trust articles with 0 protection. Now if you can refer me to a page to request protection for a topic, it would be appreciated.

The whole perspective of Wikipedia is to default to open editing. That's a long-standing policy, and it's actually worked surprisingly well--there are more eyes that catch and fix vandalism then there are editors who desire to do damage (or make accidental changes), and good-faith editors (even new ones just learning their way around the system) are welcome. As I mentioned on the talk-page in response to you, the WP:PROT page is that policy, which mentions the WP:RFPP page (which I also mentioned) as the place to request protection. DMacks (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, can you restore Coffee's indefinite move-sysop protection? Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

D'oh. Fixxxed. DMacks (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Dmacks,

I am not familiar with editing and discussing in Wikipedia, so I hope you will read this message.

To start with: anybody with a Ph.D. in mathematics has been mentioned in the appendix of some book or has published articles in refereed journals. By the way, note that the book of Mertens, Sorin and Zamir has not even been published.

I have a Ph.D in mathematics from Princeton, I thaught mathematics in Harvard and I know personally most of the prominent mathematicians of our time. Moreover I had several discussions with Mertens. I think I am competent enough on the matter to judge about his achievements. As said they do not go beyond those of any average Ph.D. student.

The best work is probably the one on probability, done in the 70.The rest is mediocre.

The wikipedia article has been obviously written by his students. My impression is that they are trying to promote their own research: I read that one should not quote original research in Wikipedia article.

Game theory is a mixed subject, the kind of journals on which Mertens published are run mainly by economists. It is very easy to sell inferior mathematics to researchers whose competences are elesewhere. This is what Mertens and his students have being doing. The wikipedia article is part of this strategy.

Of course it is very hard for non-mathematicians to judge about rhese topics, if you have a friend with a Ph.D. in topology or probability, please ask him to have a look at these works. I am pretty confident that, once he will unravelled the complicated notation and the intentional obscurities in which these results are clothed, he will agree with me. Serious mathematics is something very different.

If this can give you an idea: look at the page of Michel Bismut (a serious mathematician working in global analysis), he was for some time at the same school with Mertens. No topologist or analyst would think that Mertens work is in the least comparable with Bismut's achievements (please check!), actually he probably never heard of Mertens... I think that devoting enormous space to what most scholars would call "charlatanery" can only damage the reputation and the usefulness of wikipedia.

Best regards.

P.S. I do not like to give my data around in internet, but if you want further informations we can exchange email, tell me why.

No need to give out personal info...Wikipedia doesn't rely on our (editor's) opinions precisely because nobody here really "knows" who anyone else is. Instead, we all have to rely on published sources (we trust that a journal or other peer-reviewed work is a sign of quality). That's why the claims you made are a problem as written...they make strong assertions about a person's overall work and reputation without supplying a specific WP:CITE to meet our verifiability policy. I agree that sources can be misinterpreted (and I don't have the full refs handy), and that would need to be fixed. But even if an expert may be able to deconstruct and find flaws, but again, those would have to be published in a citeable source that is at least as reliable as the original claims. And "fame" has nothing to do with worthiness on Wikipedia, we actually have all sorts of nonsense, but as long as it's cited, it stays. And as long as criticism of it is cited, the article can even say "expert XX says this is all nonsense". It's only if something isn't published at all (personal claims about self, our own original analysis, etc.) that we have to exclude it. DMacks (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I put back my remarks Ihope they are readable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.113.59.212 (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I tagged them with requiring a citation so nonexperts can see an expert working through that process of dispute/deconstruction. I also left a note at WikiProject Mathematics for assistance on the article and its various claims. DMacks (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what's going on with this article, although it looks as though two people (re-)wrote it at about the same time, with some confusion arising from the fact that the original WP entry was mis-titled as "2-Hydroxyphenethylamine". My work, replacing an older and pretty worthless stub, is the one that's still in place, but I recognize it requires much additional data, which I'm in the process of assembling. However, I'm having some computer problems that prevent me from doing this quickly, so I'd appreciate some forbearance on the part of administrators and other editors in leaving my effort alone for long enough for me to complete it over the next week or so. If there are some other problems with the inclusion in WP of this topic per se, I'd appreciate being informed, so that I don't waste any more time on creating something that's going to be trashed later. Thanks.Xprofj (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The chemical itself sounds notable enough for an article (appears to have citeable biochemical activity, and to be the parent compound of a class that also does in general). Since it already asserts some notability, it's not in danger of any sort of immediate deletion. And (hopefully!) other chemists join me in recognizing that WP is always an incomplete work in progress, so as long as what is there meets normal guidelines, it can be gradually written as you and others have the resources to do so. DMacks (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

hi dmacks, you wrote: "Birth-dates are surprisingly controversial and subject to concerns about rumor and other "non-encyclopediac" commentary". i'm new to wikipedia, could you please elaborate a little on what you mean by this statement? i'm interested in possibly adding birthdates in the future so that's why i'm asking, thanks. Coubelle (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

For some reason, some people are sensitive about having their birthday published, so they do not mention it in interviews or on their own personal or business websites. By policy, wikipedia can only report information that has already been published elsewhere, and our articles need to include citations to reliable other sources in order for readers to verify that our articles are correct. On the other hand, some editors post pure rumors ("I heard it somewhere", or "I read it in some gossip column or unreliable tabloid", which is the opposite of a citation to a reliable source), which is an especially common problem for celebrities and other public personalities. For some reason, a few articles on wikipedia are especially prone to accumulating unsourced/unreliable information, so there are lots of editors who are especially vigilant about watching for and removing those problems there. DMacks (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I was simply undoing block evasion. I have no knowledge of any issues surrounding the article, so feel free to fix it any way you find appropriate.—Kww(talk) 20:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see. No worries (and thanks for handling that situation!), I'll take care of it. DMacks (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Live-line working, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radial (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) 12:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

December 10 is Ada Lovelace's birthday! Not only was she the world's first computer programmer, but also the world's first female open source developer! Come celebrate with Wikimedia District of Columbia at Busboys & Poets for an informal get together!

The Washington, DC event will be held on Monday, December 10, 2012 at Busboys & Poets on 5th St NW & K St NW near Mt Vernon Square. The area is easily accessible by the Red Line Chinatown stop and the Yellow Line and Green Line Mt Vernon Square stop, as well as by WMATA buses.

Kirill ^[talk] 14:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Your edit comment "absence of a direct Co-Co bond" is about the bridged form (if the non-bridged form and no Co–Co bond, is it really one molecule?" I assume that there is an M-M bond in the unbridged species. It would be like the one in Mn2(CO)10, unbridged. The interesting feature about the dynamics, aside from moving CO's from bridging to terminal positions, is that the M-M bond materializes and then disappears. This is one reason that, historically, there has been so much support for an M-M bond in all isomers. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup, my comment was solely to explain why I was relocating a sentence or two. It seemed to be discussing one isomer but placed in a paragraph about the other isomer, so I moved it to the paragraph discussing the isomer I thought it was about. My only semi-serious structural study of M₂ clusters themselves was years ago and in relation solely to Rh. The appearance/disappearance of the bond as the ligands move really is interesting indeed! DMacks (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you clarify your thoughts on images in Pornographic film actor#History? I don't see how a modern-day actress is particularly "relevant to the topics" of this specific section. To my eye, the whole article beyond this section is almost solely about modern aspects, so it seems WP:UNDUE to add yet more modern decoration to the history section. DMacks (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

DMacks - Sure. When I went onto the page - the photos there didn't make sense, so I thought I'd improve it. 1). Main Photo: Although the photo was mine - it was not a good photo for this topic, so I replaced it with a group shot of actresses which is what the page is supposed to be about. 2). History Heading. Jenna Jameson is the most well known Pornstar ever. She also revolutionized the industry with her marketing techniques - therefore she is a far better choice than the not-so-good photo of Jenna Haze. 3). Female Performers Heading. Why is there a photo of a guy there? And a super crap photo at that. So I switched the photo to two top FEMALE performers to match the heading. 4). Male Performers heading. I left the photos of four of the top Male Performers there, since that was correct. 5). Pornographic Actors and STDs Heading. Why is there a picture of a gay actor there? That's dumb. So I replaced it with a photo of Jessica Drake who is extremely active in the industry regarding the topic. She is basically the Industry's spokesmodel for HIV and AIDS awareness and prevention in the porn industry which is exactly what the topic is about. So to me, this is all very obvious. I seriously don't understand your references to "modern" aspects, since I didn't change a word of text. Please restore all of the work I did making the page far better that it was. Thank You. Glenn Francis (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

[let's keep this on your talk-page where it started.] DMacks (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Please join Wikimedia DC and four other local media nonprofits—the National Press Club's Young Members Committee, 100Reporters, IRE and the Fund for Investigative Journalism—in winding down another year with a night of well-mannered frivolity.

The festivities will take place on Friday evening from 6:30 PM to 9:00 PM in the Zenger Room on the 13th Floor of the National Press Club, located on 529 14th Street NW, near Metro Center. There will be meat and vegetarian appetizers as well as a cash bar with specially reduced drink prices all night long. In addition, we will be exhibiting the finalists of the Wiki Loves Monuments photo contest at the event.

Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 04:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, DMacks. You have new messages at Kevin12xd's talk page.
Message added 01:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kevin12xd... | speak up | take a peek | email me 01:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I am contacting you because you have been one of the contributors to Oligonucleotide synthesis. I listed this article for a review with an objective to improve it prior to submitting as a candidate for featured articles. I wonder whether you could please find some time to take a look and, provided that you feel like, write a review for this article. I would truly appreciate your help. Thank you, Chemist234 (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, DMacks. You have new messages at SnrRailways's talk page.
Message added 18:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have formatted the talk page of this article Three-phase electric power. See [[2]] where you semi-demanded a consensus to stop some of the language nonsense. I hope this is OK with you adding a cut-off date (60 days) and perhaps a few people involved or not-involved should be notified? Does it need to get this formal or this large? Do we proceed with (some) notifications, do you want to do it, me do it, us do it, or just use drive-byers? Yeah, I am keeping my legs crossed, trying not to pee my pants, with a few edits for the page once unprotected. We have some strong-willed editors that frequent and drive-by the page. Thanks 174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I added a notice to 13 editor's talk pages taken from the last page and half of the article's edit history. See my [contributions] page. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

That's all fine with me (and thank you for working on it!), nothing wrong with the process as you have formalized it. And now just sit back and see what happens. Regardless, there will eventually be a "recent" analysis/discussion there, and the drivebys can simply be reverted with a solid basis. I really don't have an opinion one way or another, I just hate the pointless edit-warring and people claiming WP must be in their "own" way--article popped up on my admin edit-warring radar. DMacks (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again but you may want to take a look at [this] edit. Seems some are getting wound up fairly quickly and it may be starting to fly. Thanks. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

HELP! I require some assistance on this talk page. User:DieSwartzPunkt has launched a dispute against my edits[3]. He continually attempts to disrupt any consensus effort I have attempted on the talk page. I have made some grouping errors by including his comments into the consensus for which I have explained and apologized for on my talk page. I never intended any malace. He has exagerated the occurences in an attempt to build a case, which he hasnow done. Also, please see this vandal attempting impose a phoney permanent block of my user[4]. It would seem there may be some sockpuppetting ocurring. I need the help of an admin to sort out this consensus or forget it and stop the vandal nonsense regarding any aspect of the consensus process. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, was off-line for a day or so. But it looks like you got yourself an appropriate response from ANI. DMacks (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi sir,some of the users make irritation of their editing and they used to edit the page without reliable sources.I dnt knw wat to do?I request u to give me some remedial actions sir.Also I want to speak out lot to u sir.Help me.Benjaminvetri (talk) 08:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I responded on your User talk:Benjaminvetri user talk page. I think others might wind up being interested in seeing it and would not be likely to look at my page. DMacks (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I will obey ur words definitely sir. Thanks for your concern sir.I want this page, 'List of highest grossing tamil films' to be semi protected sir bcoz most of the users from unknown IP address used to misuse the article by editing without any motivation sir.u may check over it sir.I need ur help for the to get protected.I hope u might not mistake me and my wordings.Thank u sir.Benjaminvetri (talk) 08:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Doh! -- KTC (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess she's *really* blocked:) DMacks (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It is one of those Harvnb or sfn type thingies from fluorine. (If you can fix please, appreciated.) Am kinda cranking on basic structure now. Had cut that content from the higher level article, wanted it retained in lower. Again, thanks for help, man and saw that you fixed other things with the transfer!TCO (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for doing so much work on this set of articles! DMacks (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello I am Traptor12 and I just what to let you know that I am really doing the best I can to help Wiseau's page with references and I have taken all the stupid mistakes that I have made. If there are some other stupid mistakes I have made please let me know.

Thanks, Traptor12 (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2013

His birthdate is extremely controversial. See Talk:Tommy Wiseau. An anonymous question/answer on the internet fails Wikipedia's "Reliable-Sources" policy policy and therefore is not acceptable for this situation. That source even cites wikipedia itself, so obviously "wikipedia says it's true because wikipedia says it" is pretty silly. Per living persons policy, it is forbidden to include this sort of information without a reliable source. DMacks (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

After u have reverted the page List of highest grossing tamil films, Most of the users are vandalizing the article.check over it sir.I hate editing again and again. Unknown IP address usres are dominating. Take remedial measures plz.Benjaminvetri (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I want to let you know that I have undid your revert of AlanParkerFrance's edit at Brominated vegetable oil. I think his edits introduce some corrections, though it may be more about perspective than accuracy. Let's discuss on the article's talk page if you disagree. Cheers, -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. DMacks (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ligand cone angle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monovalent (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) 11:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Why do you systematically remove my contributions on the List of PDF software? I understand that there are some policies regarding external links, but why do you remove content link the one concerning the popular PDFsam? See ^[1] Quentin.denis (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That page is very explicitly only for listing wikipedia articles, in keeping with wikipedia general content guidelines such as WP:NOTDIR. See WP:WTAF for some other thoughts. (you obviously don't have to know those acronyms, it's just easier for me to type them than to remember the actual article titles on those pages themselves) DMacks (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear DMacks, On November 14, 2012 you removed my contribution to the Wikipedia page „Combinatorial chemistry”. I’m absolutely beginner in editing Wikipedia pages so did not know that license is needed for uploading documents. It took some time to get the license. Since now the files 1982 doc1.jpg and 1982 doc2.jpg and 1982doc2 0001.jpg are licensed I hope you will restore my contribution to the Combinatorial chemistry page. As beginner in editing, I welcome any comments and I’m ready to answer your questions. Best regards SynthAr SynthAr (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Döbereiner's triads, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Triad (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) 11:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I just wanted to thank you for the kind welcome you sent me earlier and for your quick action on the issue at hand.

I am definitely aware that I don't need to request permission to make changes to articles, but I was on a time constraint, discovered the issue, and didn't have time to learn how to revert the page to a previous iteration myself, so I figured the next best thing was letting the community know of the issue.

Thanks, again.

Zziccardi (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep sorry about that! I actually go to Wallington Grammar School ! :D , but I know that everything needs to have hard evidence. There was a newsletter on their website about the head-teacher retiring, if I link that, is that good enough for a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazim5294 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure! I'm not sure it's important or notable in any way, but a cite for unexpected or premature changeover would be sufficient. DMacks (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops, indeed I had the wrong idea about the meaning of "radical", sorry. I will fix that. But what is the correct generic name for a molecule that has atoms with "unsatisfied" valence bonds, compared to their usual valence, without regard for spin state? Namely, a neutral carbon with less than 4 bonds, a neutral oxygen with less than 2, etc? (BTW I understand that C≡O is considered to be a "satisfied" molecule because it is assumed to have a + charge on the O and a - charge on the C, is that right?) All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

IUPAC used to (also) use the term "radical" to mean "just some piece of a structure" (...with one or more attachment points), and I assume that meaning is the origin of the term "R group". "Electron deficient" comes close to what you are describing I think? I've also seen "unsatisfied valence", but have to be careful because some readers (and even some chemists!) confuse the idea of normal valence with simple valence electron count, which makes "unsatisfied valence" incorrectly interpreted as "unsatisfied octet". Your understanding of Carbon monoxide#Molecular properties is correct. DMacks (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm, is electron deficient really appropriate for :CH2? The electron count is *more* than what is needed to explain its bonds, not less; isn't it?
"Unsatisfied valence" seems to be correct enough, but I was looking for a class name ("methylene is an unsatisfied-valence-atom-bearing compound"... 8-).
There is a section "Loose definition" in radical (chemistry) that is more like what I was thinking, but it is *too* lose, as it would include many valence-satisfied molecules. Oh well... --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

PS. I noticed that there are possible precedents (and similar problems) with respect to CH3. There are two separate articles, methyl group and methyl radical (bad title, should be "molecule"). Currently methyl is a redirect to M.group; M.group has a link to M.radical (in the body, not at the top) but M.radical has no link to M.group.
By the way, I went through all "methylene" and "methylenes" links yesterday (~150). Of those, 90 were dead wrong, since they pointed to the molecule when the author meant to point to the =CH2 group (~16) or the -CH2- bridge (~74). We definitely must rename "methylene" otherwise editors will continue to make those errors. Methinks it is better to have 100 links to disambs than 1 link to the wrong (yet not obviously wrong!) sense of the term.
Since "radical" is ambiguous (could mean "group" too) and specialists would not like "free radical" (for the spin issue), what about

• "Methylene molecule"
• "Methylene (molecule)"
• "Methylene (compound)"

Thanks...--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, me again. Re your objection to listing methylene as a "radical": forgive my ignorance, but since the ground state of the methylene molecule is the triplet state, doesn't that make it an official "radical"? All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi DMacks, nice to see you to do some moderation work on ICTB article. You have removed a photo (20px) from that article, which I was added earlier. I thought that this photo will clarify the atrocities occurred in Bangladesh Liberation War, 1971. Would you please reconsider it? Thank you.--Freemesm (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

We have a whole article about it, the {{main}} there, to clarify that subject. The image, while quite explicit about some details, really is only about very few specific details. The tribunal (the actual topic of the article) isn't just about the event/situation in this image, the image seems to be just one example of a long-term wide-spread event? Seeing it does not enhance understanding of the tribunal, but only of one event or part of the back-story leading up to it, which is detailed elsewhere. So it fails WP:NFCC#8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." DMacks (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks for your explanation.--Freemesm (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I really dnt know wat mistake I have done.please reply and I will rectify it definitely sir. One more pblm is going as a biggest issue.please do help in improving the proper article. I request you to give the correct solution kindly sir.

Enthiran is the highest grossing Indian film of all time beating 3 idiots as said by India Today ,Indian express,[[NDTV],TV9 and CNN-IBN with grossing of minimum 400 crores.

India Today [[5]]

Indianexpress[[6]]

TV9[[7]]

NDTV[[8]]

CNN-IBN[[9]]

[[10]]

But most of the users are dominating this actual fact.They say that Enthiran movie grossed just 255 crores as said by Box Office India which is an independent website which is related to only Hindi films and not tamil films.In tat talk page,they never replied valuable point.

Everyone know tat India Today ,Indianexpress,[[NDTV],TV9 and CNN-IBN are far far better than the independent website Box Office India.

This is not a small problem.This issue is going on for two years.Please take it under your control and work towards it sir.This is not a single person issue but the question of millions.Do remember it and help us sir.

Benjaminvetri (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You changed many things besides the facts. You are welcome to correct the numbers and order, but not to change the formatting (italics, boldface, etc.). You are welcome to respond to other editor's comments on article talk-pages, but you are not allowed to delete them. DMacks (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on this - I failed to check the history before making my edit. I see others have stepped in now so I will take no more action. Sorry for any confusion. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all. Thanks for working to help other editors! DMacks (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, DMacks. You have new messages at Meeeeeeee39's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi where do we go from here on the section Criticism on Ravishankar's page. The other editor says the size of the section is more than the whole article, can that be a reason for not to update the article. Please guide. If you go back to some versions back, the whole section on Criticism itself was removed. Sean.hoyland had to undo the removal twice. Please guide.Lahttiv (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I see there is a discussion beginning on the talkpage. That's the first place to see if editors can agree on...well, anything really (reliability of sources, specific pieces of content, size of section, etc.). WP:RS and WP:NPOV (especially the WP:UNDUE section) are probably the key guideline and policy, and Wikipedia:Criticism might have some suggestions. DMacks (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please join Wikimedia DC for Happy Hour at the Capitol City Brewery at Metro Center on Thursday, February 28 at 6 p.m. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 34. Hope to see you there! Harej (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Berger Cookies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The View (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) 13:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi DMacks, since you are interested in meetups in DC, I'd like to invite you to attend the Cato Institute's "Wikipedia and Legislative Data" events on March 14. (There's also an all day workshop on March 15; let me know if you are interested, we may be able to add more people.)

There will be an introduction to Wikipedia and open edit-a-thon in the afternoon, and a Sunshine Week Reception in the evening. I hope you can make it!

• Please sign up here
• Announcement on Cato's blog
• Background from Cato sponsor Jim Harper's perspective
• Background from Wikipedian Pete Forsyth's perspective

Hope to see you there! -Pete (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Guapo's at Tenleytown-AU on Saturday, March 9 at 5 PM All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 35. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 13:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the page protction. Would you be interested in looking at some of the larger issues re: this editor or the general problems with the Art of Living foundation article; or have recommendations on how I should proceed with them? --Ronz (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I started a discussion at ANI about the editor here --Ronz (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look later today... DMacks (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated! --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't duplicate discussions all over the place...leaving it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals because it definitely involves multiple editors not just the two of us. DMacks (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

There's an updated issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals --David Hedlund (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That page is on my WP:WATCHLIST so I am always automatically notified updates to it. DMacks (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

Could you please tell me why the latest submission of my article "American Industrial Systems" is deleted?

Here's the following reason, please help me understand it: "02:09, 13 March 2013 DMacks (talk | contribs) deleted page American Industrial Systems (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)"

I have followed the rules and template very similar to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontron

If you could explain it to me on what I should fix (in a more user friendly terms) that would be great.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonchouais (talk • contribs) 16:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Off to some meetings, will answer later today/tomorrow/whatever timezone description works for you. DMacks (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• American Industrial Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Sorry for the delay in following up here.) The article I deleted was substantially a marketting piece, not an encyclopedia article. Many sentences were WP:PEACOCKy. Doesn't every company (believe it) innovates, optimizes, transforms, and offers its customers value? Does any of that actually say anything factual and useful? Many sentences appeared to be cut'n'pasted from other sources, a violation of copyright and licensing laws and wikipedia policies. Kontron is not really a good model--it does not contain the PR-speak, but it also doesn't say much about its notability as a company (a term with a specific meaning on Wikipedia). On the other hand, that company is listed on the TecDAX stock index, so even if the article is poor the subject itself has some obvious notability. All articles about businesses need to meet WP:CORP guidelines. DMacks (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi DMacks, Flowers of the world has been removing filmography tables without explaining the reason so I was wondering whether you could comment on his talk page since you are quite active on Indian articles. T4B (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Another admin has just blocked him for the non-communicative/edit-warring pattern, so I'll leave it at that for now. I intend not to get involved in that format/content dispute, but will happily block edit-warriors so that cooler, discussion/guideline/consensus-minded heads can figure out what is appropriate to do. DMacks (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

why did u change it?Tejano08 (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

In honor of Women's History Month, the Smithsonian and the National Museum of Women in the Arts are teaming up to organize a Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon on Friday, March 29, 2013 from 10:00am - 5:00pm. The event is focused on encouraging women editors while improving Wikipedia entries about women artists and art world figures. This event is free of charge, but participation is limited to 20 volunteers, so RSVP today! Sarasays (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Christopher Pyne looks like a really good candidate for an AbuseFilter filter instead of page protection. Has an AbuseFilter filter been tried? If not, could I help you set one up? :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of an abusefilter for that target, and (now that I ponder it) I can't think of a useful set of patterns for this sock pile. Certainly would welcome any ideas you have! DMacks (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it seemed like mostly anonymous users causing the trouble and it seemed like a lot of page blanking. Those two attributes should be trivial to target with a filter, even rather aggressively, if limited to just that specific page title. I also noticed that some of the edits to the article were already tripping other warn-only (as opposed to warn and disallow) filters (e.g., some edits were tagged as "possible vandalism"), so those filters could be forked and made more targeted/aggressive as well, I imagine. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

(sorry missed this response!) Certainly seems like a possibility, and minimal site overhead if "this page" is the first criterion. Does EF have boolean algebra among its own hitsets? For example, "[this page] && [a certainEF#]" or "[this page] && [other EF triggering a warning]" so we don't have to cut'n'paste the actual regexps? Seems useful as a general feature, but I'm only an EF dabbler from time to time. DMacks (talk)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for having the grasp of what I was trying to do. Walter J Ference 05:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't know that there was so content under all the "Jerry Craig eats chicken"s. SHZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeantHippyZombie (talk • contribs) 13:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem:) DMacks (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi DMacks,

Respectfully, I fail to see how page protection in this instance is appropriate. I tried to have a discussion with the other editor (see Talk:Art of Living foundation#Removed Criticism section), and after that editor didn't respond to my concerns for three days I made the edit that I had discussed there. The other editor won't respond to my concerns, but just reverts my edit. I suppose if the editor ignores me again (I have posted another request for discussion) I can request a 3O. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

If I see edit-warring, I can either block the participants (either all of them, or if there is obviously one who is clearly the problem, just that one) or protect the page. It is not clear to me that there is a "right" way, and this specific section has been edit-warred for months, so I chose to protect. Please do continue to seek whatever dispute resolution is necessary. DMacks (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware what the rules about dealing with edit wars are. My point was that an editor who is refusing to respond to discussion and merely reverting others' edits with the same irrelevant edit summary every time is "one who is clearly the problem". But I will wait another day and see if this editor continues to ignore discussion, and then seek DR through another means. Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, April 13 at 5:30 PM All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 36. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 18:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, DMacks -- the page in question was deleted before I had a chance to jump in, and to my knowledge no one else had either (my fault; your action was perfectly reasonable under the PROD timeframe, which is why I'm approaching you rather than attempting to launch a Deletion Review). Would you mind undeleting for discussion and possible additions to the article? Strongpoint (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request.. Please get some notability into it soon. DMacks (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from AB1616 - California Homemade Food Act - Cottage Food Operation, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! I think the coverage in a several regional newspapers, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times, and the Santa Barbara Independent, a regional law journal and a national news site (The Christian Science Monitor) constitutes "significant coverage in reliable sources" needed to meet the threshold of notability, though the sourcing was quite lacking for the version you tagged. Also, I intend to move the page to a more concise title. Altamel (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Great work! I agree with dePROD. DMacks (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for two exciting events this weekend:

On the evening of Friday, April 19, we're hosting our first-ever WikiSalon at our K Street office. The WikiSalon will be a twice-monthly informal meetup and collaborative editing event to help build the community of Wikimedia enthusiasts here in DC; please join us for its inaugural session. Light refreshments will be provided.

On Saturday, April 20, we've partnered with the George Washington University to host the All Things GW Edit-a-Thon at the Teamsters Labor History Research Center. Please join us for behind-the-scenes tours of the University Archives and help edit articles about GWU history.

We look forward to seeing you at one or both of these events! Kirill ^[talk] 20:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, DMacks. You have new messages at Dravidianhero's talk page.
Message added 16:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Dravidian  Hero  16:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I have canceled the "renaming" done by copying the whole article from Malpasset dam, so your latest modifications were lost in the process. I don't know the best way to correct this, so I am simply informing you. Regards, Freewol (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Will talk to the other editor working there and get it resolved. DMacks (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I often find it more helpful to explain to a newbie why I have tagged their article for deletion in explicit terms, rather than simply linking them to Wikipedia policies, as you did here. If newbies were willing and able to read the Wikipedia policies, they probably wouldn't have written the offending article in the first place. It helps (and might actually encourage a bad editor to become a good one) to fully explain what the problem was, with appropriate links to policy pages. Just my 2 cents' worth. Carry on. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, editors who don't see the problem with their self-spam on an encyclopedia aren't redeemable in my experience (the WP:COI makes their chosen article probably hopeless and their followup indicates they don't even understand the difference between first-person spam and dispassionate prose). I'm always happy when others are less jaded and willing to help, and hopefully this one will be an exception. DMacks (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Betmotion by Vision Media, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page 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. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

   Copying your comment from Talk:Betmotion by Vision Media, that will likely be deleted soon, and responding...

       This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... Hello, I don't understand why are you deleting our article, it has valuable information about our company besides I saw other articles such as:

Bwin.Party Digital Entertainment party Digital: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PartyGaming 888 holdings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/888_Holdings bet365 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bet365 that are similar to us and haven't been deleted, please let me know, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FurFio (talk • contribs) 14:59, 23 April 2013‎ (UTC)

           Please see WP:CORP and WP:YFA. DMacks (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

               Expanding on DMacks' commentary:
               The other articles that you mention discuss notable online betting companies in neutral terms. Your article, on the other hand, served no purpose but to promote your organization, with numerous references to the advanced services you provided and enticements and invitations for readers to come experience these services for themselves. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I dont agree with you, the companies talk in the same terms as my article, I will go ahead and edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FurFio (talk • contribs) 15:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I also strongly encourage you to read this article about articles about "your own" company or group, which may make it hard to write a viable article. DMacks (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Giving a red link and a blue link is exactly the purpose of template:ill, if I understand it correctly. So in my opinion it was rightly used in Malpasset dam. Do you think that it is a useless template that should never be used ? Regards, Freewol (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I see now, yes it is working as you describe it--had never encountered that template before. As a reader, I think its behavior is quite confusing and not very useful:( Not intuitive that the "(fr)" takes me to the fr.wp article that does exist for the redlink that does not (fr is the content itself in french rather than a description/annotation that the the preceding link is french content). For example, it's unlike the "PDF" or other format= link in ref-citations or the IPA templates where the language-name links to the article about the language. DMacks (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point, and you are probably right about the fact that the template is directed more to the editor-to-be than to the pure reader. I am used to it since it is pretty widely used on the Wikipedia in French, but I never considered this.

On the other hand, one thing that I already thought about and find non-optimal is the direct link to another version of Wikipedia, without any information on the language, like in Reyran River, where you can guess (if you are experimented) that it links to another version of Wikipedia since the link is in another color, but you have no clue which one. I don't know what would be the best solution (apart from creating the article in English of course ;)). Regards, Freewol (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that you blocked and reverted an editor, Lewisbookreviews (talk · contribs) that had been spamming *.mcfarlandbooks.com, and I noticed that at least two other accounts, Windfalling (talk · contribs) and Spicysenor (talk · contribs) also appear to be SPAs that exist solely to insert this external link on Wikipedia. I don't know at what level MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist would be appropriate, if at all, so I wanted to get with you and ask your opinion on the matter, or if the links should just be removed. Thanks. - SudoGhost 02:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I have undone some edits done by an ip address on ravi shankar (spiritual leader) page. the references do indicate what was mentioned in the line regarding his prison program. Also, the ayurveda part though small did have references. Could you please check? I just wanted to verify if i did a correct revert. Thanks. Traintogain (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to take out edits please offer a substantial reason.

THe following has been posted elsewhere and should be responded to by some of the editors who tear down stuff without adequate explanation:

Godel's Theorems are not the pure stuff of mathematicians and it would not be surprising that a critique would be found in a philosophy journal. I wouldn't think its critical that you couldn't find in the MIT library.Its a new journal. Its paywalled but you can find it (unpaywalled) at http://www.davidpublishing.com/davidpublishing/Upfile/2/29/2012/2012022981760545.pdf . The first step is to try and read before taking down things without any acquaintance with them A year or more ago a couple of editors tried to include something similar and it was suggested that it was too early to do so. Apart from Russell and Wittgenstein who were unhappy with the Theorems and who didn't seem to be be able to put a finger on what was wrong this is the first real challenge to the Theorems. Whilst the Theorems mights sound OK their counterpart Lob's Theorem is certainly hard to accept. As Boolos says it offerss a way of proving that Santa Claus exists. I'm not trying to give an authoritative account of what Thompson says but the paper is very short and not hard for anyone competent in logic to understand. Its certainly easier than Godel's! A rough outline: In this context, a proof is a sequence of sentences using the standard rules of inferences and resulting in the conclusion which is also a sentence. Godel introduces the idea of arithematisation which translates a symbolic system into a system of numbers which serve an indexical function. His arithmetisation is intended to be isomorphic to the original system. He then introduces an arithmetic idea of proof which allows that any godel number of any formula is capable of proof including a single bracket. This is most odd and almost certainly wrong but doesn't matter that much. Boolos' text talks about sentences being proved. Boolos' text does not draw a distinction between open sentences which contain a free variable and closed sentences where all the variables are bound. This doesn't seem surprising to mathematicians who tend to be focussed on formulas rather than sentences but in normal English its like using a sentence contain a pronoun where the person who is talked about is never identified. Quine, America's greatest logician point out that open sentences are true of things but not true or false in themselves. Sentences, properly so called must be true or false and open sentences are neither. If you look at Godel's informal proof it quickly emerges that the sentence he talks about is an open sentence. As far as his formal proof is concerned arithmetic proof because it is intended to be isomorphic to ordinary proof can only be concerned with the proof of the godel numbers of closed sentences. His famous sentence starts with 'x is arithmetically unprovable' ; that formula has its own godel number; that godel number (which is the godel number of an open sentence) is then used to to create a new 'sentence' saying the godel number of the original open sentence is arithmetically unprovable. But its not a valid sentence if both proof (including arithmetic proof) is restricted to closed sentences. In theory, we could stick to Godel's idea of proof or something similar and allow open sentences into proof. But there's no good reason I can see for doing so. If Thompson is right a lot of people will find it shocking but is that so important? I am certainly sure there is nothing crazy about what he is saying and that a lot of logicians think that there is a problem here. Lets ask all the snipping editors to get together and show (within say 7 days: Thompson's thesis rests on some untenable assumption or mode of reasoning or say Godel's approach to proof of open sentences is right. This shouldn't be too hard given their convictions about these things. Fernandodelucia (talk)Fernando

I am not involved in this topic or article (and nor do I intend to be). Your behavior is the issue that brought this area to my attention because it's a futile waste of time. It's been tried, it fails, everyone gets angry, and there is no benefit to the encyclopedia. Your approach to getting your ideas into the article must change immediately-- no bluster, no ultimatums, no "if nobody can prove this wrong we have to put it in", or anything like that. By policy, wikipedia as a site has zero tolerance for edit-warring, it's a non-starter, a futile waste of everyone's time that just raises everyone's anxiety without leading to improved articles. You can either go down in flames, accomplishing nothing substantive towards your thoughts about how to improve the article, or you can work collaboratively and perhaps make progress. What you'll need is to find reliable sources that help non-expert editors recognize that 1) the source is reliable and 2) the idea has traction among those who understand it. We can't rely on our own logical analysis, we can't rely on primary research reports, and we can't draw conclusions from data ourselves. It's quite possible that some ideas can be correct but just too specialized or cutting-edge to be includeable in WP articles yet.

Dispute resolution immediately calls for de-escalation at the article while discussion occurs; bringing in others' thoughts helps develop WP:CONSENSUS, which almost always has some editors who do not agree. Consensus isn't unanimity, just at best gentlemen's agreement that "this is as close to agreement as we can get for now". There are various WP:WIKIPROJECTs on specialized topics that might draw in knowledgeable editors. There are other ways of having discussions where editors other than those involved help evaluate the consensus rather than an involved editor being biased by his own obvious position in the discussion. etc etc. DMacks (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding what stalkers do . They terrorize . I see that you have a lot of work and these criminals use your lack of attention . Like bad kids" Who bully others, What we are dealing with in the article is

[personal attack on another editor removed]

This is humiliating, intimidating or abusive behaviour which is often difficult to detect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.79.13 (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you are passionate about this idea. However, WP:NOBLE, that's now how our encyclopedia works. DMacks (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I also understand that you disagree with another editor. You will be blocked from editing at all if you ever make a personal attack against another. I recommend you WP:DISENGAGE if you cannot control your own behavior. There are no exceptions to WP:CIVIL policy. DMacks (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Accusing me of being "Passionate" and then threatening me is really perverse goodbye108.39.204.241 (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 4-Chloro-o-toluidine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acute (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) 16:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw your warning on the user page of Leoesb1032 (talk · contribs) ... just an FYI: this user had done something similar in April, but in that case had removed it themselves before I had a chance to bring it up at WP:ANI (because of content disputes we're both involved in, I wasn't going to take action on my own). I had hoped the impersonation was gone for good - I guess not. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, May 11 at 5:30 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 23:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I won't put the admin box back on my user page, but I want to know that I don't know why you are taking this Wikipedia stuff so seriously. In life, it doesn't matter. I never put up false information on Wiki pages either (just to add to my point). Please, I'll do what I do on Wikipedia and you do what you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoesb1032 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd be more comfortable at some other website, where you can play around and nobody will care. If "what you do" here is against our policies and guidelines, you will be stopped. One of the things "I do" here is to help keep this site as a useful encyclopedia. DMacks (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I know what you are saying and I respect it, but in the end, it doesn't matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoesb1032 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Three times you have locked this article, and every time it is down to the same user editwarring to his rewrite. He was bold and was reverted, since then all he has done is revert. Why should the article be locked out over one editors constant refusal to garner consensus for his changes? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know some of the back-story. I left him a strong edit-warring warning and unprotected the article. DMacks (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps now the discussion on the talk page will begin again. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

User Goodsdrew and I are debating rather Haitians should be considered Latino are not. I insisted that Haitians are Latino and should be included in the Latino/Hispanic category. Every time I add a Latin category on Haitian Canadians and Haitian Americans, he/she removes them without showing any evidence that Haitians are not Latino. I already explain on the talk pages (Talk:Haitian_Canadians, Talk:Haitian_American, and Template_talk:Hispanics/Latinos) why Haitians are Latino however he/she is not being coherent. Can you check this out please? --CoCoLumps (Love yourself) 03:38, 09 May 2013 (UTC)