User talk:DMacks/Archive 3

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.

And this is again, just for the information of the editors out here. Regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Indian Institute of Planning and Management. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. _GB^T/C 16:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but looking at the timings it's clear you only took it to the talk page after you made three reverts. _GB^T/C 16:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ponytailsnipper's last year account block details, for DMacks information. Regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Indian Institute of Planning and Management. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 12:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The duration of the block is 8 hours. Here are the reverts in question. alphachimp 12:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

DMacks (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

71.58.60.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

WP:3RR violation on The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

• Blocking administrator: Alphachimp (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Yamla 14:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Alphachimp, all my reverts were in response to serial reverts by others. Check the discussion of the page concerned. I have made every attempt to discuss the changes, but have been called a "joker". The other side is not interested in discussion. Ponytailsnipper 12:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DMacks (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

all my reverts were in response to serial reverts by others. Check the discussion of the page concerned. I have made every attempt to discuss the changes, but have been called a "joker". The other side is not interested in discussion.

Decline reason:

This is not an exception to WP:3RR — Yamla 14:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I noticed a recent edit of yours, and thought that you might be amused to note that, originally, the title of the deleted article was just “The Pit”. I moved it to “The Pit (WRPI)” and used “The Pit” for a disambiguation page. —SlamDiego_←T 21:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Neat:) DMacks (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey there

I was wondering about your revert. IUPAC uses "non-superposable". (IUPAC, Compendium of Chemical Terminology, 5th ed. (the "Gold Book") (2025). Online version: (2006–) "enantiomer". doi:10.1351/goldbook.E02069) --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the edit-summary, "superimposable" was the consensus for the "correct" word, worked out a while ago. By all means revisit the issue there with a more authoritative source so we can be consistent and consistently-correct: Talk:Chirality (chemistry)#Superposition vs Superimposition DMacks (talk) 06:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the bot not doing that? It should be! Thanks for pointing that out, serious bug there (I could've sworn I put noincludes around the tag). Sorry for potentially borking CAT:CSD, and thanks again for pointing this out, I'll ensure that the tagging is done correctly next time a userbox is tagged. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 21:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

He deserved it. But whatever, I'm past it. Blacklist (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Puja Thomson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) you deleted before under G12. It is back but I cannot find a copyvio. Maybe you can take another look to be sure? --triwbe (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The recreated article doesn't look like a copyvio. It reads like a trite bookflap or PR piece, but I couldn't find google hits for the several key phrases I tried. DMacks (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for reverting that. How exactly did you find out that some tool had edited it though?

 ViperBlade ^Talk!! 22:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, at the moment, I'm just carrying out a general clean up. After I get through all the structural changes, I'll start looking at the actual content. What do you suggest?--SilverOrion (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I just stubbed the whole thing; it was a G11 and G12 mess, but notable enough that an article should be written, rebuilding from the ground up. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear DMacks,

Sorry for such an intrusion as I am not familiar with how Wikipedia works but a bit of browsing seems to indicate that you are the administrator in charge of the following fully protected page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IIPM

I think it would be very useful for anyone who's interested in knowing more about this institute to also read the following article in Outlook mahgazine which seems to be specifically raising many of the points raised in the above page, viz:

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20080630&fname=ECol+Mahesh&sid=1

Basically, the article says the following: <excerpts>

"Four years back, I decided to intervene in one such case and took out an advertisement against one such institute, the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM). I was hoping that I would be challenged in court. Our ad suggested that all claims made by IIPM were wrong or misleading. I knew there were too many skeletons in their cupboard and, if taken to court, they would stand exposed. So, no, they didn’t take us to court. "

The article goes on to say,

"As I sat down to write this piece, I went through the claims of IIPM all over again. Nothing has changed: the same old untrue or misleading fantastical claims about salaries, placement records being better than IIMs, world class education, professors from foreign universities...you name it! Students are placed at Planman, a sister concern, at higher salaries meant to jack up placement ratios and dumped/sacked within two months. "We students realised the problems just three months into the institute but all escape routes had closed," says a student.Students who were paying Rs 1.25 lakh a semester earlier are now made to pay Rs 4 lakh for the entire year. Banks that give out loans are willing conspirators."

I hope you would agree that since it is the publisher of a national magazine raising such important questions and literally asking IIPM to sue him, it should at least find a mention, since IIPM does not seem to have responded to these challenges.

If this is not the right forum for making such a request, and it should be done somewhere else, I would be extremely grateful for guidance.

Many thanks.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by PublicInterestEd (talk • contribs) 14:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi DMacks, I've just got back home, and I was wondering if you'd been following Beetstra's work on the bot. It looks like things are progressing well, and this discussion in particular looks very interesting. If you have any bright ideas, now is the time to mention them. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I think you may have accidently created the above test page in the article namespace. I've tagged it with CSD G2 as such. Just letting you know. Apologies if I'm wrong, regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 13:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, thought it was a mistake. I've removed the tag. regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 14:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Unless you could read my mind, it does look like a clear G2. DMacks (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

Over and over again I keep getting attacked for honest contributions. And now you want to complaint about how they attack me right? As your complaint is much to general to address I can no longer edit Wikipeidia. If you do not exactly explain what you think I have done wrong then I really can not address your concerns.

I have done nothing wrong, people delete what I add in bad faith using frankly disgusting reasoning offering zero sources.

People delete my contribution, then delete my talk page contribution, then warn me for making a talk page contribution?

Then you come complaint about that? WOWOWOWWOOW DUDE!!!

This indeed means goodbye I think?

But you don't have to ban me or anything.

Gdewilde (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You have a very satisfied questioner on the reference desks. here Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Nuclear_Physics

Let me award you a gold star by proxy, keep up the good work.

*

87.102.86.73 (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought your recent comment was tasteful and kind. I have to consciously avoid a drift toward WP:TEND when I reply to some people. Any help you can give for "generalizing" the article's style would be appreciated. ;) Trilobitealive (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing my mistake to my attention  ;-) hydnjo talk 02:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC) ;-)

Oh, and by the way, my request seems to be missing the rfcu box here. Are you able to fix that, I'm sure that the oversight was caused by my sloppy checkuser request - I'm just trying to bring it all up to standard. Thanks, -hydnjo talk 02:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added the rfcu box (thus the strikes above) but don't know if I've done it properly. One "ping" from you would set my mind at ease. Thanks, hydnjo talk 03:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on the tension ring page. ActionMan12 (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey hello,

I've been tholed the Sri Lanka Prime minister is not a credible source here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water-fuelled_car&diff=next&oldid=226884930

Then you get to use a copyright violation to support the exact opposite POV?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water-fuelled_car&diff=229827409&oldid=229815204

I understand the reference has been checked I assume so it can stay where it is. I'm not entirely satisfied by the contrast here. Hope you understand. You do understand don't you? What do you think the solution is to this? It's not entirely fair IMHO.

Thanks,

Gdewilde (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss it on the talk page of the article. Make sure you clearly explain what your concern is...you sound like you are mixing up two ideas (copyright issues vs POV issues as they pertain to WP:RS). DMacks (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My concern is your use of sources, if I compare it with my use of sources I clearly see double standards applied.

Please explain.

Thanks,

Gdewilde (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss anything related to an article on the article's talk page. The inclusion and reliability of that source has already been discussed (I think in the Meyer's fuel-cell page). You obviously know this article is a sensitive issue for many editors, so it's really important to keep all discussion about it "out in the open" and in an obvious and centralized place. DMacks (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm making the changes in light of the Talk:New York discussion on moving the New York page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JBC3 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I archive the talk the way this discussion suggested: [[1]]

I archive the topics one by one so that they can be reverted if needed. There is a consensus to archive so I archive it. I think I must have missed something obvious? Could you explain what the point is of the discussion about archiving?

Please give a demonstration of correct archiving. Archive 4 definitely needs fixing and I'm not the right person to do it.[[2]]

Thanks,

Gdewilde (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This is utter crap. He simplay archived anything he didnt agree with, including open discussions that were against his agenda. Just look at the pattern, and realize how he's attempting to game the system. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Fully aware, thanks:) He's well-known in that regard, and even this exact pattern isn't a new one for him. DMacks (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't like being accused of "utter crap".

I archived the discussion per talk page request.

I archive sections specifically to be reverted in case I didn't do it right.

What purpose serves a consensus to archive if I cant archive?

Gdewilde (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell&curid=18660325&diff=230710923&oldid=230710523 (rv removal of others' comments/discussion of archiving)

I propose we also archive the current talk page and going forward follow guidlines a bit more closely.

Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines

I'm going to delete text that isnt about improvements to the article, going forward.

Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing comments

I propose moving the text to the user's talk page, and the discussion can continue there.

I have no problem educating folks, but the talk page shouldnt be a platform for editors' opinions.

Thoughts? Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and acknowledge I'm part of the problem. Thanks for being the voice of reason.--OMCV (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive away. The current set of discussions do not add any value to the article and detract from useful contributions.I55ere (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User:I55ere wrote: Archive away did he not?

Gdewilde (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

He did, but "archiving" a talk page doesn't mean removing comments here'n'there (you must never alter the flow of a conversation or change who-said-what/when). And there was no deadline given for doing the archiving. Based on others' edits and compared to your edit-summaries, it appears you were doing a bad-faith archiving, essentially just removing those specific portions of discussions you didn't want visible (instead of whole sections, or moving things to user-talkpage). You obviously know how closely your edits are being scrutinized, especially with regards to editing others' comments, so you should steer well clear of the edge of bad edits and misleading edit summaries. Further, read my later comment about archiving, where I note that it happens automatically, so again there's no need to do anything at this time. DMacks (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I was refracturing the archive to be exact. There is a lot of interesting stuff in the archives. I'm constantly under attack from this user, I would like your comment on this. Lets not pretend this is about my good faith archiving. This really has nothing to do with archiving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guyonthesubway

Thanks,

Gdewilde (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Gdewilde has said he's retired from WP, so the above is now moot. DMacks (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Explain how the material was cited then. I'm refering to the Grandfather Clause article. I removed the word blacks because the fact that the law in any way discrminated against blacks was not cited. You reverted my edit claiming that I removed cited material and was commiting vandalism.

Explain NOW how it was cited. I see it cited nowhere.

I'm not going to log into my account at this time because I don't want to cause any strife between myself and any fanboys or friends you might have. But I warn you, if you don't have an explanation for your actions, you're through.

And I can say that honestly and behind the safety net of a proxy. I'd love to log in right now and give you an IP ban, but I'm going to give you a chance to explain yourself.

It's my job to clean up articles that have "politically correct" but fallacious or uncited or biased opinions. I will do this regardless of the opposition I get from the less scrupulous of our editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.57.185 (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's footnoted. It's explained on the talk page. As others have said, good luck with the block. DMacks (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello DMacks. You and I have both closed G11 deletions by AfreeUsername. I just took a look at his Talk page, and he's been cited for various things recently, including COI. You yourself deleted an article he created, called BurlyHost. Though I thought my deletion of Servage Hosting was a genuine G11, he also cited TextDrive which is a survivor of a VfD. At DreamHost, he restored his speedy tag after another editor reverted it. (That article had previously survived an AfD). I'm wondering if undoing all his speedy tags would be a prudent thing to do. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, good detective work! I usually don't think twice about G11 nukes (though I often lean more towards citing A7) for articles that look hopeless, but always look for at least a statement of real notability first. His tags do look pointy, as a spot-check of the tagged articles do find statements of notability. That alone makes them non-speediable (which is obvious if one reads the CSD requirements), and the rapid-fire tagging of so many such articles (and never notifying their creators!) is clearly abuse of process. DMacks (talk) 04:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The following other pages were deleted after he tagged them, and I've looked at their contents:

• Aspiration hosting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lunarpages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Servage Hosting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Community Communications Online (c2o) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I stand by my deletion of Aspiration on its content, though could better have gone A7 as it clearly made no notability claims (vs G11, which is more in the eye of the reader). OTOH there are cites, so we could probably form some statement of notability from them if we want to completely undo the WP:POINT here. Lunar does make some fairly weak and completely unsupported claims of notability, though I'm not sure they are actually WP:NOTABLE enough to get through DRV and the overall content of the article was pretty close to A7 (though not really G11) IMO. Servage and c2o looked completely hopeless. Overall I'm comfortable leaving things as they are now (those deleted, all other tagged articles untagged). DMacks (talk) 04:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

FollowUp: How about you guys look more closely at the reporting I've done? Most of the hosts listed under the "web hosting" area are indeed suspicious or outright spam/policy violators (such as Aspiration Hosting). I wasn't able to post the article I created, which is fine after realizing this, but I did so after seeing those very articles. Thus, if I was in violation, so are most of them. I did notice I made a mistake on one or two, but the Dreamhost one does go into heavy self-promotion, which is apparently okay, as long as they have had some news about them that's otherwise irrelevant to their self-promotion. I'm not trying to be bitchy, but just because I've reported _several_ violations that are clear, doesn't mean I'm just going crazy reporting competing hosts. In fairness, look at articles such a LunarPages, which was removed, rightfully, as were a few others. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superb_Internet, and explain how that's anything but self-promotion? Hardly a discussion of interest, for example. I wasn't reporting out of anger or spite, I was doing it out of fairness, and after realizing that they also weren't following policies. Again, regarding dreamhost, they have a lot of self-promotion. So, is it okay and relevant as long as they post a reference to one or more news articles that show people know they exist or had some goofup? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm serious, and it'll help me know what NOT to report. PS: Sorry I don't know how to edit/update this discussion cleanly. ~AfreeUsername

Superb Internet states that it is "one of the world's 60 largest web hosts", which is an explicit claim of WP:NOTABILITY. It has several specific citations from reliable third-party sources of articles that talk in some detail about the site: in-depth reporting by multiple third-party sources is more evidence of notability. Please see WP:WEB to see what the minimum standards are for these types of articles. Regarding tagging, note that "fairness" would dictate (and the speedy-deletion pages all instruct) that you should notify the creators of pages you tag. DMacks (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "Superb Internet", the "thewhir.com" site is hardly a news source, as are many of the sites some of these companies reference, which means anyone can get a listing and have it pass the flags. Not that I'm unset people can do this, but it seems to remove the point and allows anyone to basically bypass the rules, and having competing companies get around the policies to get a listing (notice the external links to their own site) or play nice and be good about it and not resort to such tactics, giving competition an unfair advantage. It just doesn't seem to be a level playing field, though some are legitimate, it gives people reason to question the bias that _could_ be seen (not saying this is actually happening) with some "not so definites" being okay to remain.

Please also take note, that once I put the article I posted as on_hold, I re-read the policies more closely, as I didn't think they were completely clear (at first) and quickly removed that on_hold and commented that I was mistaken and wouldn't contest it. I'm sure how it must have looked that I started flagging articles (so many) all of the sudden, but I looked closely and flagged them in fairness and out of what seemed to be sound logic. Notice I didn't flag everyone and I did make a couple of mistakes, I later saw and determined. I'm obviously new to the site and rules and was just trying to help keep it clean (I was later adding comments about why as I flagged, just to help outline that intention). Thinking it was a community and enough people agree, it gets pulled. That said, I'll not bother, I get it now. I clearly have no say other than to flag and if the mods don't ultimately agree, then that's how it is. It's my choice to not use the site or service if I'm unhappy, and that's what I'll do since I don't think it's completely fair or biased (not being petty, just how I feel -- it's only my view and I realize that doesn't make me right). Apologies, I won't waste anymore of your time. -AfreeUsername —Preceding unsigned comment added by AfreeUsername (talk • contribs) 04:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There are several ways that articles can be deleted. Speedy-deletion is one that has very strict criteria, for deleting only the most obvious (on their face) articles. A claim of notability or a reference can surely be contested, but that's a bit of a wider discussion and so is explicitly not a valid reason for speedy-deletion. DMacks (talk) 05:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi DMack, cld u pls comment on this: Critical testimonies: the "INutility Warehouse?

Also, I wld like to signal in the article page the existence of these points. likely with a new paragraph called "Critical testimonies", or "Critics" (which, or what esle?) and, for now, saying in it smthing like:

There are numerous critics made regarding that company. See the discussion page. (or any other way of taking people there for now).

What do you think of it, and any suggestion u cn make?

Thanks. Basicdesign (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC) ==Deuterium question==Thank you for correctly handling my question and apologies for mislicating it.WFPMWFPM (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

See here: Talk:Spore_(2008_video_game)#Stop_it_with_the_Australian_release_date

Semi-protect of Spore is not necessary, as this is valid, verifiable information. JAF1970 is, and has been completely unreasonable with this (see further up the talk page), and has been attempting to control the article, even though he has no secondary sources to back up his claims. Spik3balloon (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

DMacks, a small group of people are hell-bent on ignoring the official press release of Electronic Arts and trying to go with sites such as Kotaku Australia, despite having no proof of actual first hand proof (ie. Electronic Arts or Maxis) that contradicts the official release. My position is if they can find Electronic Arts or Maxis press release or information stating a third release date for a single country, they can change it. JAF1970 (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I believe JAF and another user have violated 3RR here: Development of Spore. All of them are just reverts, but JAF just entered in "Just so you know, I'm not on Wikipedia 24/7. I do plan to go out tonight" for one of them. Which was very unacceptable: all reverts are supposed to have a reason. Even if JAF is reverting vandalism: he should be reporting the editor, so admins can deal with it. Edit warring isn't helping matters at all. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The post by EA AsiaPac Community and Promotions Manager (YSum) is first hand proof. Spik3balloon (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Concretecold has done 3RR. I've already spoken to DMacks about this. He has been obstinate and I finally warned him - which of course he tit-for-tatted and reported me, despite the fact I've already told him to take it up in the Development of Spore talk page. Then he tried to bargain his Spore (video game) edit with the Development of Spore edit. What is this, a barter? JAF1970 (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CITE from WP:RS is critical. If there is conflicting info from different reliable sources, state each along with who said it. As a tertiary source, WP policy is to report what is reported and leave it to the reader to decide how credible the reported-report is, not to second-guess or choose among different reliable sources ourselves (sin-of-omission or WP:OR). "Verifiability not truth." More importantly, I'm only involved here to kill the edit-war: page protection doesn't establish what is right or endorse any particular content, it merely forces everyone to talk on the talk page to resolve the dispute rationally. DMacks (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Concretecold has reverted a page despite being warned and told to discuss it in the talk page. He only sent me a 3RR warning and reverted the page. What's "funny" is that he is trying to use his Development of Spore reverts to try to bargain the Spore (2008 video game) edits. What th'...? JAF1970 (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

JAF is being a hypocrite. He is complaining about an editor doing a 3RR, but he has done 3RR (more than once as well). Both editors could be handling the situation a lot better. I left JAF a note about 3RR here: User_talk:JAF1970#Development_of_Spore, which he obviously chose to ignore, because he has been edit warring/3RRing on the development page since the note. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss anything pertaining to a page on its talk-page so that other editors can find the discussion and participate. DMacks (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, can you explain why you protected Spore (2008 video game) and then edited the protected article? That doesn't seem appropriate to me. --Conti|✉ 20:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I protected to stop an edit war, and then adjusted content to match what appeared to be the consensus of the "good" sourced material. The edit war was about different editors only accepting one source as gospel-truth, so I also tightened the wording to clarify which source claimed what and again avoid editors' choosing which is "right". I had actually semi-protected the page earlier to try to stop the war and directed editors to the talk-page for consensus (in response to a WP:RFPP request]], but I didn't realize that it was mostly established editors (i.e., only full-protect would have stopped the warring, WP:OWNing, and WP:3RRing). So they kept on warring, and I upgraded the protection and tried to fix the content mess. Users from both sides of the debate requested that I fix the content (see above) (in various ways obviously) on my talk page though they did not file an official WP:RFPP edit-requested (apparently some not all realized they were not blocked by the accidental only-semi-protection). If you feel it would be better, I can simply revert back to the form of the page when I earlier (only semi-)protected it, as "uninvolved admin quenching edit-war" was my intent that that time. DMacks (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it contradictory to say that there was an edit war and a consensus for one particular version? I see where you're coming from, but usually articles aren't supposed to be edited after they are protected, especially not in regards to the edit war that caused the protection. The edits themselves look good to me, but I'd appreciate it if you'd revert them nonetheless if someone complains about them on the Spore talk page. :) --Conti|✉ 20:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The edit-war appeared to be essentially a one-man crusade against consensus:) I undid the edit to content (I left in place the edit that broke a ref tag...was a side-effect of the edit war, unrelated to its content). Feel free to comment on the content at the talk page. Thanks for your concern! DMacks (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Not a crusade, and not one person, either. If there's Spore on the shelves in Australia on Sept 4, by all means add it. Sheesh. JAF1970 (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to change the protection's expiry date to September 5 instead, so that when Europeans get their hands on the game they can also update the article? Gary King (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to the broken street date, it's an irrelevent issue now, since they're on the shelves on September 1. Sheesh. Remove the prot. JAF1970 (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

How dare you smurf my talk page with your horrible words. I did not smurf any articles. Give me links! I want proof. You gave me none. Smurf off! User:Pokeboi User talk:Pokeboi 23:02, 4 September 2008 (GMT)

Hi

My external link was deleted from density page, and i dont know why. This link is about a program online which calculate density of hydrocarbons in anytemperature and anypressure.

I am not sure, but i think if i spended a lot of time to develop my program i could hope to show it to other people interested at density calculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.136.28.254 (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason I listed was "WP:EL...only minimally related": I felt it was too far afield of several parts of the external links guideline. If your site really is important, popular, or novel enough, get a Wikipedia page about it (see the web-content guidelines), then it would be completely welcome as a Wikilink at the various pages specifically related to what it is/does. But otherwise, Wikipedia is not for promotion or for non-notable content and we're not a dumping-ground for everyone's favorite or self-written program. Consider listing on DMOZ? DMacks (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for respond my question. I am sure now density for hydrocarbons are no relative with that page, i will consider to create density_hydrocarbons wikisite. No, My site is no important for all. Thanks alot, you clear my mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.136.28.254 (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I prepared the following for the Spore game page, believing that people who had responsibly edited 10 other articles would be able to add to it, then discovered it was now fully protected. I would have put it right before the criticism section. Although I use the wiki moniker Samuel Lann, I am William Sims Bainbridge Ph.D. (google me if you wish), an established and responsible scientist. Could you please help me add this material?Samuel Lann (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Spore claims to be at least partly-science based, as evidenced by an advertisement on its home page in early September 2008, publicizing a National Geographic television program as "a deeper look at the science behind Spore." Earlier Will Wright games have also sought to establish connections to science and scholarship notably through bibliographies included in the instruction manuals for SimCity 2000 and The Sims.^[1][2] Despite superficial impressions to the contrary, a close look at Spore shows that the intellectual connections are not to the science of biological evolution, but rather to theories about social interaction from ethology, cultural anthropology, economics, and sociology.

In the creature stage of the game, carnivores gain DNA by eating other animals, herbivores do so by scavenging corpses, and then the player decides which of this DNA to add to the creature's genome. This bears no resemblance to the processes of random mutation, sexual combination, and natural selection of real biological evolution. To be sure, it is possible that natural transduction (genetics) by viruses consequentially transports genes from one species to another, but this is believed to happen only very rarely and is not the primary mechanism of biological evolution. When two Spore creatures mate, they do not apparently possess different genomes, nor is their offspring's genome a random mixture of the parents'.

However, there is no technical reason why real processes of biological evolution by natural selection could not have been built into the game, for example using the genetic algorithm method, a biomimetic form of computing that has existed for well over three decades.^[3] Indeed, it is easy to imagine a game that had the player shape evolution by adjusting the natural environment of the world, for example modeling allopatric speciation - the separation of one species into two facilitated by limited gene flow between two areas and somewhat different environments in those locations - by setting up distinct regions and constricting movement between them.^[4][5] For later stages of the game, the genetic algorithms could be treated as a multi-agent system, for example in modeling the emotive and religious social behavior of the tribal and civilization stages.^[6]

It is unclear whether a game genuinely based on evolution by natural selection from random variation could become popular. H. Porter Abbott argues that human thought organizes things in terms of narratives - stories in which protagonists face obstacles and take actions in pursuit of goals - and the scientific theory of evolution cannot compete with religious stories because it is unnarratable.^[7] Like the myth that God created Heaven and Earth, Will Wright's "god games" assume teleology, the notion that events have purposes.

The ethology of communication in the creature phase of the game places great emphasis on chemical communication by means of a pheromone, as the player's character turns its hind end toward another creature it wants as a friend, and emits an odor in its direction. Examples in nature of this form of chemical communication among higher animals usually take place between members of the same species, but Spore shows it taking place across species, as well as during mating rituals. Indeed, Spore's separate nests, tribes and cities are different species incapable of interbreeding.

In both the tribal and civilization stages of the game, relations between the player's group and other groups are negotiated economically, militarily, or through emotional and expressive appeals. In fact, the primary way that the human species developed ever larger social groups, from the earliest tribal stage at least through the kingship system that has lasted in some parts of the world even until today, has been through family kinship. Spore shows no appreciation for the complex kinship structures so important in social anthropology, as for example analyzed in The Elementary Structures of Kinship by Claude Lévi-Strauss.^[8]

The player can begin the process of building an alliance with another group by bringing it gifts, and this reflects the importance of a gift economy emphasized by classical anthropologists.^[9][10] This is not incompatible with building larger societies via kinship structures, and Lévi-Strauss pointed out that exogamy - marriage outside the group functioning to link groups - could be conceptualized as the exchange of gifts that took the form of brides. However, gift exchange seems quite secondary to biological kinship in the development of human societies, perhaps playing a greater role when really large societies came to rely more heavily upon fictive kinship, such as the king being considered the father of all. In modern societies, economic market exchange plays an especially great role and has implications for all other forms of exchange, but kinship and exchange carried out inside kin groups were more significant in earlier states of human development, and are ignored by Spore.^[11][12]

In the civilization stage of the game, one of the ways a player may conquer another city is through religious conversion, and attempts are more likely to succeed if the inhabitants of the city are unhappy. Indeed, one subtle tactic is to squeeze off the economic flow into that city, thereby stressing the population, then bombard it with religious propaganda. This reflects the common finding in the sociology of religion that intense religious appeals work best with deprived populations, who turn to religion either because they have no alternative course in their desperate situation, or because religion is fundamentally a compensator against the inescapable deprivations of human life.^{[13][14][15][16]}

However, there is little evidence to support the effectiveness of so-called "disembodied appeals" - religious messages transmitted impersonally - and religious conversion almost always operates by means of pre-existing social bonds, spreading via social influence through the network of friends and family of people who are already devout members.^[17][18][19] With respect to social solidarity, religion has generally been regarded as a mechanism for sustaining the unity of a group that already exists, rather than being a really effective means for expanding the scope of a social group.^[20]

Okay, I'll take a look later tonight. DMacks (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry for adding {{cite}} to the paragraph, but I saw another user had added "not" to the page, and thought a reference would clear it up. If that's vandalism, maybe you'd like to add {{test3}} to their user talk page. Also, you might like to consider archiving your talk page. A.C. Norman (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I usually look hard before assuming a drive-by anon unexplained change like that is really a dispute:) Templated. And I think I got auto-archiving working...thought I had it set up months ago but obviously not. DMacks (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I need a second opinion. The opening sentence in this article is "Crime in Qatar has a low rate". Do you think there is any problem with this structure? Or "There is a low rate of crime in Qatar" better? I am a bit confused to choose which will be the better structure. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence has an unusual (for English) structure and that your alternative is clearer and less awkward. DMacks (talk) 06:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

All these articles cite documents on a website that does not exist. Maybe it did exist. Maybe not. For sure it does not exist right now. In some of these cases the people are LIVING. Under strict BLP we cannot have quotes attributed to them that are unsourced. If you can find a working source, then knock yourself out. Otherwise this is wrong.NoNameMaddox (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINK, where I've directed you twice (now three times) and its linked pages tell you some pretty good ways to find those sources, and that a dead link doesn't mean "no such thing existed" is the standard. Remember to assume good faith about the original edits instead of presuming the cites are bogus. The WP:DEADLINK and related pages even tell you how to tag those dead links so that other editors will come and help you find copies of those old documents. DMacks (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

AGF is a good policy and I agree with your Watkins citation. That said, there is no reason to AGF with a BLP when there is no accurate sourcing. BTW what is with USER: LAVIDALOCA following me arround calling me a puppet? Can you help with this? All my edits have been useful and done with best intentionsNoNameMaddox (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There is always good reason to AGF for at least a minute, and to spend that minute copying the URL into archive.org to see if there is an historical copy of the page, which you can then link in the cite. That way everyone benefits: those who care about good citing and those who want to read content. DMacks (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as a point of information, it's highly probable this is a sock puppet of the banned sock master User:ColScott. ColScott's had so many sock puppets he has his own category. His M.O. is to take a username related to Charles Manson, make edits on articles related to his real life identity (see League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and then go to various Manson related articles and proceed as he has been tonight. A checkuser request will be forthcoming on this. LaVidaLoca (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please add a link to the CU request when you file it. DMacks (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh is this what your problem is? Your abusiveness has been most insulting. If you check that category you keep labelling me with, I do not see a single Manson related name. And my name is Jason Maddox and what has Maddox got to do with Manson? And anyway, you barely edit- whose sock account are you?NoNameMaddox (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not debate who you are or are not here...LVL has already said he intends to follow standard WP processes for resolving that issue (something you could learn a lot from). DMacks (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Since he's now admitted he's Don Murphy, do you still want me to do the checkuser? LaVidaLoca (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This particular sock is now severely indef'ed and won't be coming back. If you think CU could find more info that could help solve future problems, go for it, but otherwise probably not useful for this user on its own. DMacks (talk) 07:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it will reveal anything we don't already know. The best way I could go about it would be to find another reference in ColScott's history, which would include a lot of discussion at WP:AN/I from June of last year about his use of his blog/forum to out people and references to the same on the User:ColScott block log. I don't know if you've seen it, but if not, please see this and the associated forum he operates. I certainly hope this isn't going to cause you problems. Thanks! LaVidaLoca (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thinking further, a CU actually could be useful as one more rope to tie this one to the others and keep "fresh/recent info" available about this case. DMacks (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll try then to work one up. I will get back to you. LaVidaLoca (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thinking even further, meh don't bother for me since everything anyone else needs to know is already apparently known about this situation. DMacks (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It's been a fairly salient problem over the past year or two. I was about to file it when I saw this. That user is an administrator, checkuser, oversight and arbitrator who has been targeted by the guy before, and apparently now as well. That's good enough for me. Thanks. LaVidaLoca (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look again at alkaloids. I still have to be convinced that three teaching books, 2 old, one recent, and two recent peer reviewed articles are wrong, and that things really are different. Please look at the refs in detail. 70.137.143.23 (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your clean up of my Hexachlorobenzene entry. This was my first Wiki post, for a class assignment, and got a little cite-happy. I appreciate the help. 74.178.56.42 (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Kristen

Greetings! I was just about to shut down 209.29.46.0/24 as well. Looking at the last two hours worth of edits, I see no good edits from any of 209.29.0.0/16 so I think it's safe regarding collateral damage. Thanks for your help, Antandrus (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The crude way to do it is to bring up the last 5,000 IP edits and search for 209.29. You can also get a good sense by using Wikiscanner (it's out of date, but will give you a good idea of the frequency of edits from a range over a longish period). It would be nice if we had direct SQL access to the database, but ... Antandrus (talk) 04:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

...for clearing that up. I guess I don't know everything...<sighs in contempt>--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 17:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly! To answer your first question, yes, the stereochemical structure of the compound "pyroglutamic acid" (a.k.a. "pidolic acid") is correctly represented as it was in Pidolic_acid.png. My mistake (I'll fix it shortly). To answer your second question (which I'm glad you asked)... I had originally named my .png version of the structural formula "Pyrogluatamic_acid.png" (including the "a"). However, now that I observe my work after a time, I can't recall why I named it "pyrogluatamic acid" rather than "pyroglutamic acid". Perhaps you can explain the rationale behind the name?

The PubChem data associated with this compound shows three entries: #7405 (what the old png image was representing), #499 (possibly the form my new svg image is representing?), and #5289118 (an ionized form).

This brings me to another point: what are we to do about multiple forms of (essentially...) the same compound? Not only different stereoisomers, but also ions which have lost only, say, a hydrogen to become ionized. Left handed and right handed molecules are fundamentally different due to their three dimensional shape, and yet we almost always describe them in the same article. I think the "vague structure" of #499 (above) is more informative, since it doesn't show one stereoisomer or the other, but a structure that might be interpreted as either. Do we really want to write an article about a specific stereoisomer, or do we want to combine them in D/L / R/S groupings?

Many articles refer randomly to whatever various form(s) (e.g. the three above) the initial author was familiar with. I can't cite examples of this off the top of my head, but such articles are abound, especially those relating to pharmaceuticals (which are typically provided as racemic mixtures, further complicating things. -- Should zopiclone and eszopiclone even be separate articles? One of them, zopiclone, should have 50% more information than zopiclone.).

I'm still trying to figure all of this out, so if there's anything I'm missing here, let me know.

Cheers, Fuzzform (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just nominated Julie MacDonald for deletion. Northwestgnome (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this was the helpful thing to do, I could see only disruption and wondered what I was missing. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult to understand what has been disrupted when this revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A68.103.31.116&diff=240174709&oldid=240173343 which is all with a discussion page of an IP-addressed entry. Such a revert gives the appearance of under-handed editing by the two of you with a heading (above) that appears to be an attempt to hide a coalition attack of atheist editors seeking to fill the gap left by the retirement of Hrafn, and instead you have tread on free speech in the most obvious manner possible - given the experience of a fellow editor who knows how to search deeply. Hrafn's so-called "hit list" and Filll's multiple test attack on this former MIT biophysicist and Silicon Valley CEO seems to prove the point that the WP POV on Creation is that such people are stupid, yet no editor here has explain this biophysicst's edits in time asymmetry, genetic code structure, or the fact (that was referenced) an edit of his was made stating that the Amish are Young Earth Creationists, which appears to have triggered the entire cascade of bans and defamation of this editor. Given such an agenda, how do you think this Foundation will escape an investigation of whether USA Federal funds have been used to suppress the free speech of a citizen of the USA? Worse yet for you two is that the IP address you have attacked is clearly in Kansas, a state with special laws. Turned insideout, the same system that dockets your edits might identify you down to your history of IP addresses surfed over the entire web for your entire history of computer use since ~2002. Do you doubt that such technology is in place and this editor has trapped you into talking with each other up to the level of the senior staffers at the Foundation, certain search engines, and government funding agencies? Clearly, the War on Terror put such technology in place, and now the question is simply whether you are on their radar screen and whether they care. We do. 18:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.28.87 (talk)

Would you mind undeleting Russell G. Lloyd, Jr. (which you speedied a few months ago) to my userspace? He's a former mayor of the major city of the region I live in, and so I'd like to see what was there and use it to flesh out an article on him. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kmweber/Russell G. Lloyd, Jr.--not much, but there ya go! DMacks (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks a lot!

Dear Administrators, Kindly put a clear tag on top of the IIPM page that mentions that this page is edit protected. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 07:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 07:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your work fighting vandalism on the skittles page thanks!Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

When you have a moment, can you take a look at the history of biodegradable plastic? There is an editor who has been disruptive - repeatedly adding the same poorly written paragraph despite being reverted by several editors. I'd either block the IP or protect the article myself, but since I've been reverting it's probably best handled by an uninvolved administrator. Can you look and see what you think is the best course of action? Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I counter-signed your level4 warning. DMacks (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The image stacking problem only happens if you use a screen smaller than 800x600. Most screens are 1024x768 or more, and featured lists are built to accommodate screens of at least that size, which makes sense. Gary King (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Why intentionally make it hard for users to read a page, when there are alternatives that work for everyone? See MOS:IMAGES, which explicitly advises against stacking and editing for accessibility rather than perfect layout for "some standard type of display". DMacks (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be more constructive if this discussion was taken to WT:FLC instead of only one FLC as images on the side of FLCs are pretty common over there. Out of the ten most recently promoted FLCs at WP:FL2008, these have images next to a table: List of Wranglers of the University of Cambridge, List of Calgary Flames head coaches, List of Florida Marlins Opening Day starting pitchers, List of The Open Championship champions, and List of Boston Red Sox Opening Day starting pitchers. And I'd say in most cases there is no specific reason for choosing an image in the lead; however, in the case of List of universities in Ontario, I chose that image since it's arguably the most well-known school in the province; it also has the largest enrollment, and is the oldest. Gary King (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Any way you could check for suspected sockpuppetry without me having to submit a formal request? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a checkuser, and I don't think it's needed yet...tag with {{spa}} and have some faith in the closing admin to see the same shenanigans you see:) There's no serious policy issue (unless you suspect the sock-puppetting is being done to evade a ban) and they haven't yet proven to have an effect on the outcome of the AfD (they may yet find WP:RS support, so all's well by the end). However, if AfD closes "keep" and you think there are socks that inappropriately swayed the outcome, then it's a perfect time for WP:RFCU. DMacks (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

68.222.28.120 (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC) I think you made a mistake by deleting the Erin Callan artcle with Lehman Brothers. She is responsible for much of the turmoil we are now seeing in the capital and credit markets. You should reseach her and David Einhorn. I think you will see that they will be written about for years to come when the books are written about the proposed $700 BILLION DOLLAr bailout. 68.222.28.120 (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

When there are specific claims of notability that are supported by reliable citations, feel free to create a viable page that does not run afoul of the speedy-deletion criteria. It's not up to me to do your research and my crystal ball is broken. DMacks (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I created a reasonable article. I made improvements per the request of others. I created a talk page and made a reasonable argument to contest speedy deletion. Instead, the article was deleted nearly three times in less than five minutes, as well as the talk page, without any reference to the argument made. I also made reference to other existing articles which--over the course of their existence--have grown into solid articles. The deletion is contrary to the spirit of the wiki community and I'm frustrated with the haste of the action as it makes it difficult to improve/create organically. Thanks for listening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cancerstick (talk • contribs) 02:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The article in the form I deleted was well outside anything acceptible per speedy-deletion standards for websites. It failed to assert notability, it was written somewhat like an advertisement, and it was claimed to be a copyright violation from some other website. That's three speedy-deletion triggers all at once. I have no objection to the article, but you need to write a viable article. I saw nothing on the talk-page that would resolve these concerns. Given the ad-tone and especially the copyright problem, really the only way the page could be salvaged would be to restart completely from scratch. You are (still) welcome to write a viable article, but it has to start out being viable...Wikipedia's main article space isn't a sandbox for "what hopefully will eventually become a viable article". Use a userspace sandbox or something, then commit the article when it's actually viable. DMacks (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So if we reference our own article I just put that statement at the bottom of the article I referenced? I riposted the way you recommended, let me know if I need to change something. Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobwh (talk • contribs) 20:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Somehow you have to prove that the material is available under the GFDL content license. An excellent way would certainly be a note stating that on the original webpages, yes. DMacks (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi There, sorry i'm not so experianced with Wiki so i am probably doing something wrong but.... as stated in my article "Zikney Tzfat" was an incredibly important and influential rock band in Israel, they sold a gold album (!), relesed 4 albums with the majour brand in Israel (NMC), had thousands of fans and were regularly written about and in all the majour TV stations in Israel (and even the Europien MTV channel as well with their song Riki) I have put links connecting to a site that sales their album, another majour link about the most important bands in Israel with a special page about "Zikney Tzfat" and 3 other links of live concerts aired on the majour TV channel in Israel. so how come the editor said:

02:16, 7 October 2008 DMacks (Talk | contribs) deleted "Zikney tzfat" ‎ (A7 (group): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a group/company/etc.)

I simply dont understand

please cancel your deletion. Many Thanks Roy

Here is the article again if you need it:

Zikney Tzfat (or “Old Men Of Zefat” in Hebrew) were a grunge / punk group formed in Tel Aviv Israel around 1990 by Maor Cohen, Yoni Bentovim, Oren Lutenberg, and later joined by Rea Mochiach. They were known for their wild and chaotic concerts and their extreme lyrics which were full with absurdist humour. In the period of their first album (simply titled “Zikney Tzfat” ) their music was very noisy and influenced by American grunge bands like Killdozer and Butthole Surfers. Around 1994 the band members changed and the band released another album (Zikney Tzfat 2 ) which was more soft and melodic and was more successful commercially (but musically was less appreciated). In 1995 they released two more albums (“Ten Li Shlager” and “Ten Li Shlager 2” which were more “Low Fi” in their nature and were musically more reminiscent of the first album. The band split in 1996. Cohen continues to make music as a solo artist, Lutenberg is playing guitar with some of the best musicians in Israel ( Bari Sacharof amongst them), Mochiach was playing with Gogol Bordello and David Byrne amongst others and continues to make music and Bentovim is a film maker. Other musicians who played in the band in various periods are: Tom Mochiach and Yuval Kiner and aviv papo. Zikney Tzfat were a very influential band, especially at the beginning of the nineties mainly because in their extremity they sounded like nothing else (not before or since…) in the Israeli music scene, they brought an attitude of freedom and sloppiness of sound and performance to a music scene that is mostly very measured and controlled.

Discography: Zikney Tzfat -1992 Zikney Tzfat 2- 1994 Ten Li Shlager- 1995 Ten Li Shlager2-1996

Links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12gOY5XDxr0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X6sbCAQ7ps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztUwPC7vBMc&feature=related http://mooma.keshet-tv.com/artist.asp?ArtistID=1553 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy75 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Done--sorry about that! That statement about gold was pretty buried in the article. Might want to make "what makes this band important?" more prominent, or at least list chart-positions or awards for each album in the discography list. I've placed some "cite-needed" tags on the claims of notability because (unfortunately) we do have bands make all sorts of false claims to try to boost themselves--specific cites to some mainstream press coverage would be helpful. Note that Youtube is not a valid source...need "real" publications (ok if in Hebrew, but if so might be nice to add a translation of a key sentence or two). See WP:BAND and WP:RS for more information. DMacks (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

DMacks, I was working with another administrator on editing the Not One Sparrow article per Wikipedia protocol, when you deleted it. I had less than two hours from the first notice of speedy deletion to your own deletion, and was frantically editing in the meantime. Please explain the trigger finger, and why you didn't look at the article development timeframe before deletion, in my opinion both were incredibly unprofessional and unwarranted. No organization encourages one of its users to take legitimate steps, and gives them less than two hours to perform them. Wikiwikip0808 (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As stated in all over the deletion policies, at best the {subst:tl|hangon}} gives notice you intend to fix very very soon, but in no way prevents admins from deciding it's not viable now and deleting it. At the time I deleted it, it wasn't even remotely close to being viable, barly failing at least one of the speedy-deletion criteria. There was no evidence of recent/ongoing work in the article or on the talk-page. Deletion is based on the current status that some thing is, not what could be. In fact there is no stated timeframe, and many admins are very keen to delete non-viable content within an hour or so at best. Unfortunately, many new editors throw some not-yet-ready content on WP with a promise to "fix it real soon now" and yet never do--WP main article space is a place for things that meet our minimum standards not a sandbox to get things ready. You're welcome to recreate a page in a viable form when you have the time to work on it. I can undelete the page as it was into your user sandbox if you plan to get it fixed up within a few days and then it can go back as a live article. I see you did recreate it and yet another admin deleted that as still failing speedy criteria. Looks like this page would need some serious work before going live in main-article space. DMacks (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

DMAcks, the short material you found upon deltion of the article was the section I was editing between the time (again, a matter of hours if not minutes) I heard from the last admin and the time you deleted the article, and when I saved that section after much work, there was no rest of the article to add it to. I never left the Wikipedia editing process from the time I heard from the first admin until beyond your deletion. I'll pass on trying to add the article again, at least at this particular stage, but thank you for the offer. As I mentioned to the otehr admin, it would be very helpful to those of us who are trying to seriously submit a viable article if you guys could have one admin watch an artcile at a time, and allow for some time to edit after suggesting changes. I understand some might not address immediately, but at least a day or two would be more fair and reasonable. Wikiwikip0808 (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I would like to know what gives you the right to think that you have a more important opinion than I do when it comes to deciding whether my life story deserves its own wikipedia page?

Myself and the rest of the band members of Cosmic Dust Bunnies have been asked by local fans to create a page, and we are trying to do that. How is that going to be possible when admins throw there nose in within 5 minutes and delete what little work we manage to put into it?

I would like to ask that you immediately repost my page so I can continue with information on it.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamezShepherd (talk • contribs) 17:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:BAND sets specific minimum criteria for what makes a band "notable enough" to merit a page on this site; likewise WP:BIO for individuals. DMacks (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so from what I understand, famous people come second to interesting people... in that case, what you find uninteresting might be the next guys wet dream. I think before you go being trigger happy you should pick up your test tube and walk away from the computer, professor. Give people some time to enter the relevant information before booting their existence off the face of the earth, and follow the wikipedia rules.--JamezShepherd (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to recreate the page in a form that asserts notability. Deletion is not "cannot exist", just "for now, page was hopeless in its form and showed no promise"...feel free to prove me wrong. WP:NOTABILITY is one of the fundamental guidelines of Wikipedia itself, nothing to do with my ideas. DMacks (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)