User talk:DMacks/Archive 22

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.

16:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

DMacks,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Hi. To answer the question you raised while protecting the page: "not sure why so many puppets decided today to contradict the cited ref" — it was the subject's birthday yesterday and her mother tongue has been a topic of controversy among puppets for a while now, despite her having clarified it in the cited ref. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Krimuk90: Thanks for the info! DMacks (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gab) @ 20:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi

How can I list my animation studio in the list of animation studios?

Thanks AA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterstroke1985 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

WP list articles are solely indexes of other existing WP articles. Unless there is an actual article specifically about your company, you cannot list it on the list page. You might wish to read the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline to make sure you should be even trying to do this at all, and for some advice/warnings should you choose to do so. WP:CORP is the specific guideline for whether a company merits having an article about it. DMacks (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP, User:104.41.3.167, put an edit request on his talk page requesting that additional information be posted to WP:ANEW. This is a two-part request. First, please extend the block. The unregistered editor is continuing to try to cause maximum disruption. Second, please revoke talk page access. It is my understanding that blocked editors have the talk page only to request unblock. Also, thank you for blocking. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done and  Done Blocked editor chose not to dispute his block, so the block stands. The block was to prevent a pattern of disruption, which he instead chose to continue doing. DMacks (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

RE: January 2015

Information icon Hello, I'm DMacks. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! DMacks (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed my edit because it got stuck in the wrong place - or, so it appears. FWIW: The entire 'Stanley Meyer' page is a farce contrived by the same people that wanted his invention stopped before it bankrupted them. A vast number of people were well paid to lie about his death and others. Anyway- screw that I guess. Sorry to see Wiki going the way of politics. The VERY INFORMATIVE URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Covenant,_The_Sword,_and_the_Arm_of_the_Lord has been taken down and as a former member of that org. I resent the lie that this removal represents. I am NOT an ardent supporter of what CSA was but to be truly free, we must be able to know the truth.

Thank You Thecultarmorer — Preceding unsigned comment added by CultArmorer (talk • contribs) 16:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the seemingly misdirected warning. Your edit appeared to be some sort of test or stumbling around of a new editor, wasn't sure what the situation was (other than that it wasn't malicious or intentional vandalism). Figured I'd better leave a note that had some links about getting started editing somehow. As to your larger ideological concern, wikipedia is noticeably mainstream, or at least gives more weight to mainstream views and groups than to fringe or less popularly-notable ones. That's a direct result of the WP:V policy...nothing we can do about it. DMacks (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

1 So far nobody explained to me why my Balto-Slavic Note was removed. You say: "was already disputed (removed) by another editor". Well, it was removed and it wasn't disputed.

2 I would appreciate, if you could take some of your magnificent time and explain to me why you removed the Balto-Slavic Note from Indo-European languages, Proto-Balto-Slavic language, Balto-Slavic languages and from Baltic languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drozofilos (talk • contribs) 09:59, 12 January 2015‎ (UTC)

You made an edit, someone else undid it. That's pretty common on wikipedia. You then re-made it. That's headed into edit-warring rather than a civil WP:BRD bold-edit/revert/discuss collaboration. It was the repeated insertion of the same content more than once in more than one article that popped up on my radar. I have no interest in the topic, merely in keeping your wiki-tenure from getting cut off before it really even begins because you tripped some behavioral fuses. Looking more closely, it seems like more than one editor removed that same/similar content of yours from the various articles where you added it, which means multiple others object to it for whatever reason. That makes it all the more important that you get WP:CONSENSUS before continuing with an apparently minority editorial position. DMacks (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say it's only just to expect someone who removes a section to explain the motivation. It hasn't been done. I haven't altered any text that existed prior to my intrusion. I added a relevant note. When the number is 3, it is not possible to make any accurate statistical conclusions, so you shouldn't be saying "minority editorial position". Besides, it is a lot about minority rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drozofilos (talk • contribs) 10:14, 12 January 2015‎ (UTC)

But wikipedia is not a free-for-all/anarchy editing haven (it's not a democracy, but it's not a place where you can go against everyone else at every turn and hope to win). Even if it were 1:1, I would block both editors if they blindly readd/removed each other, regardless of explanation, rather than stepping back and talking about it, getting others' input, and recognizing that the final result cannot be everyone's originally desired form. Please see the discussion of the "edit cycle" at the WP:CONSENSUS page I already mentioned. Looking more closely at what you are adding, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:SYNTHESIS might be good reads as well, to make sure what you are proposing to add is viable content. DMacks (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

16:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

When reverting my edit, you put in the summary “stop trying to spam your product.“ It's not my product. Don't lie again about me or anybody else. People don't like being accused like that and may quit Wikipedia because of such accusations. --Distelfinck (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The pattern of your edits on that page was to repeatedly and in different (and increasingly against-WP:CONSENSUS/guideline ways) try to get the same product into that list, which is a pretty common behavioral pattern of someone trying to promote a product. I apologize for mis-diagnosing if that is not your intent. I look forward to seeing your constructive edits. DMacks (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I accept your apology. There was only one edit by me that added the product into the list. An edit of yours has the summary “if there's no article actually about this editor product, then it does not belong in the table (WP:WTAF)“ One would think, by just looking at the summary, that you removed an entry. But you didn't do that in that edit, you just removed some of the information on that product. --Distelfinck (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You like that last sentence huh? Yeah me too thought it was a gem considering the case of molecular envy we have going on here.. and that's ALL this is.

Now forgive MY bluntness: Nowhere have I placed a molecule that is complex enough for all the whining and butthurt I've seen here to be justified. Don't you think there's a reason for that? AT BEST it's all theoretical, you just said so yourself. Now take your pissing match elsewhere. I'll make edits where and when I choose based on my own research, resources (and citations) etc. They are my theories. Prove them wrong if they're wrong. You want to argue with me about what a water molecule looks like? Bluntly put: You guys are big babies throwing long words around because you're mad that I changed your stuff out. Matter of fact, I feel like you all are teaming up on me now so as to dictate content, resulting in me no longer taking you or this topic on Wikipedia seriously. If you want to follow me around crying about every little change I make, even once I've posted my justifications and/or citations that's cool... I'm fairly sure there is some sort of Wikipedia policy that covers the act of attempting to group-bully other editors.. shall we find out?

Regards

Lazord00d (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You're thinking of WP:HOUNDING. But it explicitly exempts focusing on content that is a widespread pattern and that is disputable based on normal wikipedia policies and guidelines. For example, WP:NOR explicitly prohibits you from using your own theories (as I mentioned, WP:V is policy). And WP:CONSENSUS dictates that your going it alone in the face of others who disagree will not succeed even if all ideas were equally valid. I recommend you read WP:CIVIL so you don't get blocked for your lack of ability to work with others. Regarding your mistakes, I suspect every one of your aromatic rings is probably wrong if you generated them as actual single and double bonds (I came into this based on a single observation of one of your images that I examined, and then regenerated it the way you say you did and got the same incorrect result). It's fine if you didn't know that they are wrong (but it's disturbing that you thought they were and want to be taken seriously...it's really basic organic-structural chemistry). DMacks (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

1) Point out where I've been uncivil. I did bluntly say you guys are big babies I guess that could count... maybe.

2) It should go without saying that they're not ACTUALLY my theories.. I'm relying a bit on software to crunch numbers, software I've already cited. These aren't my hand drawn images. I do rely a little on the intelligence of the other editors in that I don't write a dissertation on every change.

3) Seems like hounding is exactly what's going on here given that:

              a) I've given my citation as to the source of these images. 

              b) There are many other models of similar composition to mine in terms of bonds and everything else, but I don't see all the noise there that I have seen here.

Lazord00d (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to leave the subject of this thread as "Poopy farts", because that's what you chose it to be as an illustration of your attempt at civil discourse. DMacks (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Lol that's a stretch there armstrong but you've been doing your stretches lately I know I've seen it hehe.. I already said I've stopped taking you seriously. That's not uncivil, or maybe it is I don't care anymore. I've explained, I've cited, I've rebutted and yet here we are. This is personal not scientific and deserves the name it got. In fact we're done here, I have zip to add here or WP in general. This is at least the 3rd time since I started editing that I've been jumped on by groups of "buddies" over the silliest things, it's as if you all think I haven't thought about any of this before I act. Believe it or not I do have some intelligence of my own, you guys have no idea who I am. Any further "talk" from you will be seen as harassment, there's your one warning on that. We're done here for realz.

Bye now

Lazord00d (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear DMacks, I hope I am using the correct channel to contact you but a page called George Zabelka was deleted yesterday for apparent copyright. I actually got an email from the author asking me to put the information on Wikipedia. What is the process as I have spent a few hours trying to figure this whole thing out? Chidiumeano (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Note that this is no guarantee that the content or topic will be acceptable (there are all the usual Wikipedia:Notability (people) standards, for example). DMacks (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

18:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello DMacks,

I hope all is well with you.

No worries, I understand.

Thanks, Sarya — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaryaS90 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You are welcomed to add comments and improve and discuss proposed changes in Criticism of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the article has reliable sources unlike the previous one. I want the article to include in wikipedia after the discussion. The discussion is taking place at Talk:Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

Thanks. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 11:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

16:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a week of protected work, and per your suggestion I have stopped posting in order to focus on updating the userified articles and projects. However, some editors have continued to post unfriendly comments and harassing posting, more of my userified pages have been tagged for deletion, I and my projects are attacked and tagged. May I ask for maintaining all sides of the agreement in that ExpertScape be userified and the other two (Diabetes and Neovandalism) be protected from tags for the week? Also can you kindly ask these editors who have continued to post and tag my projects to leave us in peace for this period? Thank you (and will post this request also under C.Fred)S.Burntout123 (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Also asking to please help protect old posting on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Burntout1234

By deleting what was under Burntout1234 for some 4 years and then referring to it in his postings, user Bbb23 have intensified the efforts to discredit certain users. I ask for protection against further deletions and vandalism. Thank youS.Burntout123 (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23 deleted 4 year old posting under Buntout1234 and the posted "You should never have been permitted to touch the user page of your sock account in the first instance. Leave it alone. I've been more than restrained given your conduct, but I won't sit by and see you revise history.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)" These are apparently consequences of questioning the legitimacy of a person who has deleted the work of others 5,000 times more than ever contributed to any WP. Posing such democratic questions should be tolerated and addressed. Fortunately the WP also has many balanced and fair editors. "revising history" is actually to delete something that was there for 4 years, as you just did. Given Bbb23's clear conflict of interest, he/she should restore back all his.her deletions on my pages and refrain from touching anything else. Asking for help and protection. Thank you S.Burntout123 (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You removed my link which I posted to Rajbeer Singh (www.rajbeersingh.com) because you said it was written by a fan. Well, with this logic also then remove the IMBD link because that too has been written by a fan. Don't be hypocritical, be consistent. You can't justify the removal of one link because it has been written by a fan and not the other. I pity the fact that you are in a dead end poor excuse for a job and that acting like a pain in the arse to other people gives your miserable excuse for a career, a sense of false purpose. However most of the articles on Wikipedia itself have been written by fans. are you going to close down Wikipedia? Bloody jokers.

(talk page stalker) I've warned this user for the WP:NPA violations above. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You couldn't answer me so you had to send your little side kick? Neither you nor he even responded to my query. If my website is classed as spam because it is not official then why is the IMBD link allowed to remain? That is not official either and was not written by Rajbir Singh himself but a fan. You guys need to sort out your rules and policies before you start implementing them. You can't remove one link but not the other??? All those external links which were allowed to remain, how do you know they are accurate? Just because something has been written by a journalist it doesn't make it any more accurate than if it was written by a fan.

Actually yes, WP:RS does make a journalist a more reliable source. You might want to take some time to re-evaluate if wikipedia is the place where you wish to participate by its rules. As it stands, you've just temporarily lost your edit privileges (further problems will likely make it an indefinitely long block). Many of us all collaborate here and discuss things civilly, as you noticed (but are not doing yourself), because that too is part of the behavior policy here. DMacks (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 03:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

16:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello DMacks,

Why did you reverse the change I made asking for citation that Princeton's founding affiliation is "nonsectarian", when there is already a citation showing Princeton's founding affiliation as "Calvinist Presbyterian"?

According to Wikipedia's editing instructions: "To ensure that all Wikipedia content is verifiable, anyone may question an un-cited claim by inserting a ^{[citation needed]} tag".

So, what is the problem in asking for a citation in this case?

Regards, RichyBlack

In keeping with wikipedia's edit instructions regarding using an edit summary, I explained my edit as:

The ref right there states "the University has always been officially non-sectarian"

The ref a few words later covers that whole block of words (WP:CITEFOOT seems to discourage putting multiple footnote links to the same ref within the same sentence or few words of each other). You can check the edit-history of that article to see that one and one for other edits of mine undoing contrary-to-cited-ref changes you made. DMacks (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

So, the founding affiliation is Presbyterian, however, the university is non-sectarian. This does not imply that the founding affiliation is non-sectarian. I hope you see how this can be misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichyBlack (talk • contribs) 19:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The founders were affiliated, not necessarily what they founded. That is indeed a difficult line to find in many cases. DMacks (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 18:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Since you mentioned, I figured that it didn't actually sound very neutral. But yes, will keep that in mind next time. By the way, it is true that the university's doing very well; so what I want to know is that what can be the probable appropriate manner of including information in an article? Thank you and yes, keep it up; you guys are doing a great contribution to the world.

Regards, Mahdi Ezaz Maswood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahdi Ezaz Maswood (talk • contribs) 12:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

"Very well" needs some sort of objective measurement, supported by bibliographic citation to an independent news source. For example, does it have a high ranking, highest test scores, or largest number of a certain major in its geographic area? Has it received governmental or other awards? DMacks (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done sigh. DMacks (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

16:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You had participated on, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, you should see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done DMacks (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The current order of the schools represents a bias toward Princeton. Colleges are generally alphabetized by the proper name and not using the names college or university. I cite this Ivy League source: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~library/recmgmt/forms/FilingRules.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiguelJoseErnst (talk • contribs) 06:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I cited wikipedia policy that prohibits edit-warring even if you "know" you're right, pending the person with whom you disagree (or others who might notice) responding and possibly finding contradictory basis for it. I'm wearing my administrator hat here, not based on the substance or taking a position in the dispute at this point. DMacks (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Good to know. I have thus disputed the neutrality of the article since it shows a bias toward Princeton by not alphabetizing the schools correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiguelJoseErnst (talk • contribs) 06:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to remove the speedy deletion template from The Vespers article. I've cited my reasons on their Talk page. Absent objections, I plan to remove the template in two weeks, around March 1. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I responded on the talkpage. DMacks (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

17:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey we are both chemists so you should cut me a break and not play me like you did. Just let me restore all my changes and we will be cool. OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falloutlord (talk • contribs) 04:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

16:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Dmacks.... Dmacks... Your brain is like rotten potato sacks....oh Dmacks.... You are a cheat...I can't defeat... You cheat in a way very neat...I think do you want I should beat...I have more heat...than you Mr cheat...dmacks.. Dmacks.. Oh you cheat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.177.54 (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done +1yr. DMacks (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. 02:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

16:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't make the STikik leaderboard! You'll get there one day champ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.191.174 (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

15:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing posted wrong about samantha ruth prabhu. Because she is the leading actress of telugu and tamil industries that known fact and truth for everyone..so if you dont know dont edit the page.As i know in my sense i am editing the page of samantha.so please even you are the senior admin of wikipedia page..May please check your seniority..so sorry if i said wrong.

Thank you Dmacks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhil789654 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Verifiability is a non-negotiable policy on Wikipedia, especially for articles about people. That you "know" something to be "truth" is not sufficient. Instead, every biographical fact and claim about importance must have a specific bibliographic citation. I and at least one other editor have told you this several times. I suggest you take time to read the links we keep giving you rather than getting yourself blocked from editing at all if you continue to break one of our core policies repeatedly. DMacks (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Please don't delete the page... Smoking in the Philippines.. I'll going to change it, just don't delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haroldok (talk • contribs) 11:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not know anything about that page. Why do you think I would delete it? DMacks (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for your help. I really appreciate. You could add me on FB or whatsoever. ▒hÅ╓Θ╚DΦ|≈ ▓ 11:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! I don't use Facebook though. Good luck with your studies! DMacks (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

15:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi DMacks,

I made a recent change to the Jared Hasselhoff article, changing "Philadelphia, Pennsylvania" to "Philadelphia". In my edit description, I said that this style was called for by Wikipedia:naming conventions (geographic names), which I called "a policy".

You later reverted that change, apparently while patrolling recent edits. (Thank you for doing that work, by the way; it's thankless, contentious, and vitally important.) In your edit description, you observed that NCGN is a guideline, not a policy, and said it applies only to the titles of articles about places, not to their mention in other articles.

I understand now that I was mistaken to call that guideline a "policy". But it's clear that its scope isn't limited to article titles; its lead paragraph begins "This page describes conventions for determining the titles of Wikipedia articles on places and for the use of place names in Wikipedia articles."

I have added a section about this to the article's talk page. Would you like to weigh in? TypoBoy (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

What happened to you? I did what I thought and that link was dead so I replaced that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankit.srivastava.vns (talk • contribs) 17:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You inserted highly promotional content, which is against the whole nature of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia rather than a travel brochure. That's exactly what the message I left on your talkpage says, when it talks about "non-neutral" wording. DMacks (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey. Do you know what the inclusion criteria are for lists such as 3 (number)#In science? 213.109.230.96 (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see an official guideline posted as such, but a recent discussion seemed to have some consistent themes of what makes something likely reasonable to include vs probably too trivial: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#RfC: How much trivia belongs in number articles.3F. Searching that talkpage and its archives for "trivia" might find more examples. DMacks (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! That was helpful. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

[[@DMacks: I spent the whole day yesterday troubleshooting my account upon discovering after a 1-year absence that my talk page was bombarded with citations, warnings, blockings and more. I barely even use my Wikipedia account and am quite sure that the problems occurred due to the engaged Hotspot Shield on my computer, during the odd times I happened to be on my Wikipedia page. Please read this email I received yesterday from admin Doc Tree: "Hello Caroline, I'm Doc Tree, a volunteer with the Account Creation team. I will try to answer your questions rather than refer you elsewhere even though this isn't "on topic" for account creation.

Yes, using Hotspot Shield is almost certainly the reason for the notices you received. Hotspot Shield is an anonymizing proxy service that is intended to hide the Internet protocol (IP) address of users. Wikipedia and similar sites use the IP to block abuse. An open or anonymizing proxy hides the IP of an abusive editor (one posting spam, threats, vandalism and so on) and allows an abusive editor to quickly change the IP that appears in logs. Open and anonymous proxies have been used to disrupt Wikipedia and have been routinely blocked from editing our encyclopedia for quite a while (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PROXY). The only exceptions are special cases where a productive editor is working from a location where censorship is imposed such as mainland China.

I checked your account. It is not blocked. You will need to use an ordinary connection to the Internet to log in and edit. You will not be able to do so through Hotspot Shield or any similar anonymizing service.

I hope helps,

Doc Tree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doctree English Wikipedia Account Creation Team"

Being that yesterday I could not log on, request a new password, submit, or edit, but as of last night am once again able to, it seems that this account is no longer blocked. I am not a spambot, a vandal, or an edit warrior. I wanted to clean up my talk page, as I figured the blaring citations had been rendered irrelevant. CST March 20, 2015CissterSledge (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)]]

Okay, that makes sense. Seems like a key difference is "your page" as the Cisster sledge logged in account vs the anonymous/logged-out IP. One could be blocked and not the other (currently anonymous edits from the IP are blocked but editing by logged in account is not), and accidentally switching between login and logout can tangle it up further. The IP (whoever has been using it) has a bad history, but if it's part of some proxy system, others are also possibly using it besides you. Keeping logged in keeps your edits distinct from others' and makes it easy to keep their misbehavior from affecting you. DMacks (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I just have to remember to disengage the Hotspot Shield whenever I'm on here. Which is not often. I will explain the reason for removing all of the warnings on my user talk page. That shouldn't be a problem, then.... should it? CissterSledge (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That all sounds fine. Thanks for figuring it out (and contributing to WP)! DMacks (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

There is consensus that some archiving is necessary. Can you please unprotect Archive 2 to enable us to do this? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Archive 3 is the current one (in use since September 2011). DMacks (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

15:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done DMacks (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)