User talk:DMacks/Archive 35

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.

15:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

After adding the {{tfm}} template to {{radic}}, all articles using it have become affected and now display: _{‹The template Sqrt is being considered for merging.›}. Shouldn't it have used the type=disabled parameter so that the 122 articles using {{radic}} and {{radical}} weren't affected? (I considered changing it myself but I don't know if leaving that notice in affected articles is common practice.) —Cousteau (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Done. DMacks (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Why do you continue to undo my edits? My edits are not disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P747AH (talk • contribs) 18:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Dmacks! I have notice from some of your wikiedits that you could access a number of scientific journals! I want to ask you if could verify the content the content of some articles from Transactions of the Faraday Society and Angewandte Chemie regarding some aspect mentioned in activity coefficient#Concentrated solutions of electrolytes. I suppose, based on some hints, that the one-page reference in Angewandte Chemie is a just a book review! Could you confirm? Thanks.

As for the other reference involving Faraday Transactions, I'll adjust the article about activity coefficient to redisplay from article history the initial reference mentioned there.--82.137.13.108 (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

(Update.) It seems that there are (at least) two articles by E. Glueckauf in Transactions of the Faraday Society, which I have now inserted them there. Perhaps these articles are somehow integrated in the chapter by Glueckauf from the book reviewed in Angewandte Chemie.--82.137.15.31 (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

That Angewandte Chemie is indeed a book-review. The book itself is [7][8], which contains chapters by various other experts in the field. I can't find a local copy, but based on snippets of the index, Glueckauf probably wrote one or more chapters, or is at least mentioned as ref by others. Given you have the original lit refs that presumably fully support what our article says, I don't think you need the additional book ref. Do you still need me to pull actual copies of the Faraday articles to verify any content? DMacks (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I need. I have only the info about 1959 book (encountered in a general physical chemistry textbook), initial info which has lead to the discovery/spotting of the existence of article(s) by Glueckauf in Faraday. Thanks!--82.137.13.204 (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

More specifically, I want to insert in the mentioned wikiarticle details from Faraday/Glueckauf about steps of reasoning which lead to the displayed formula there. Thanks!--82.137.12.215 (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to promote the rating of the article because I thought that everything was well-written. There was no process, whatsoever. If you think that what I did was incomplete, you can review it again and then apply a rating for the article. I am not an experienced editor, so I had no idea about the article promotion process.

Thanks

Sushn345wiki (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

There's actually a specific set of criteria and a process for the "Good Article" rating. See Wikipedia:Good articles for details. While I agree the article's writing is decent about the technical details of the topic, I think the two major tags regarding actual understandability raise a substantial concern that it isn't yet "good" overall. DMacks (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

For example I created an article entitled "The Great Gabby" which this one is obviously not right. I would like to change it to "The Great Gatsby", how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haroldok (talk • contribs) 16:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

See WP:Renaming for details of the process. Let me know if you need help actually working through it. DMacks (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

18:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for fixing that. Self-closed "section" tags however are what the instructions at WP:LST use, do you think this should be updated? – Uanfala 09:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Also noting that removing <section/> tags from a page would break the transclusions of those sections (the one that brought me here luckily didn't have any). – Uanfala 18:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

	Hello DMacks: You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. North America1000 05:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Today I witnessed a number of IP vandalism on this page which I corrected then and there. It would be really helpful if you make sure that Samantha Ruth Prabhu page is protected atleast for a period of one year. Bollywood junction (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for patrolling! DMacks (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry -- I have no idea how to reply to your comment on my talk page directly.

The Link I added though opens for me... http://www.as.wvu.edu/biology/bio463/Long et al 2006 Lower yield than expected under increased CO2.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnixon01 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If I type of paste that whole thing into my browser, it works. But if I click on it, it's truncated after "Long" because URLs aren't formally allowed to have spaces in them. At best, some browsers can figure out what was probably meant. Here is the ref your edit made:

• Long, SP; Ainsworth, EA; Leakey, AD; Nösberger, J; Ort, DR (2006). et al 2006 Lower yield than expected under increased CO2.pdf "Food for thought: lower-than-expected crop yield stimulation with rising CO₂ concentrations" (PDF). Science. 312 (5782): 1918–21. Bibcode:2006Sci...312.1918L. doi:10.1126/science.1114722. PMID 16809532. {{cite journal}}: Check |url= value (help)

What happens when you click on the title in it? The citation itself also highlighted the problem, with a link to Help:CS1_errors#bad_url. DMacks (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hnixon01: no problem to keep writing here. DMacks (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi DMacks. A couple months back you helped clean up Yarra Valley Grammar. The article content was subsequently protected for a couple of weeks. The protection expired and the article remained pretty much stable until today when a fairly new account basially re-added all of the content you and others removed. I've reverted back to the last stable version per WP:STATUSQUO and asked the new editor to discuss this fairly large change on the article's talk page. The new editor did try to add citations for the re-added content, but almost all of them were to the school's official website and the content was still basically a "directory-like" listing of the school's campus which seemed to me to be more promotional than not. Anyway, if I was too bold and removed stuff that didn't need to be removed this time around, please revert. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm about 95% certain that he's an old friend, but filling out SPI reports gets to be a pain after the first few hundred socks. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• I handed it off to CU, who confirmed your suspicion. Thanks for being alert! This isn't one of the LTAs I usually follow. DMacks (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation! Could you block and tag please? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done DMacks (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

00:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for Template:Company-list table start. I was waiting to convert all of the lists until after I finished the first pass with the original format - most of my macros were already set up for it. I'm almost there; just a few of the big ones left and a few that I'm "negotiating" on. I'm planning to make a second pass to refine the ICB categories, and will switch over to your templates on each list then. Did one as a test: List of companies of Togo. Took about two minutes to convert and looks nice; still readable behind-the-curtain, probably more so. Again, thanks for the professional work. Kuru (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

DMacks forgot to ping you for the List of caves of Maryland article. I responded to you there. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I was doing some poking around in the edits of Fourlaxers in prepping an SPI I filed last week. In the course of checking diffs, I saw that an IP you later blocked (107.77.204.31) had, over the summer, removed material Fourlaxers left on a talkpage.[13] I reverted to restore the talkpage material, and today a different IP (204.8.194.146) showed up to reinstate the deletion of the blocked IP.[14] It could be an innocent coincidence, but that's a weirdly specific thing to do, and it smacks of someone getting around a block. Since you're the blocking admin, I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Grandpallama (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: I'm not familiar with the Fourlaxers sockdrawer. But I agree that this edit seems suspicious. DMacks (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@DMacks: Let me clarify--I don't think this IP is related to the Fourlaxers socking. That's just how I stumbled upon it. It looks unrelated to me (just someone Fourlaxers had interacted with), but it did look like an IP trying to evade a block you had placed on another IP. Sorry for the confusion. Grandpallama (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

DMacks I was simply trying to stop a biased editor from editing. The current status page is extremely unbalanced and unfair. SeminoleNation has deleted just about all of my content that balanced the section of the page. SemioneNation is creating a false narrative that HBCUs are on the decline and becoming irrelevant which is factually untrue. For example, the editor left the following comment italicized below

In 2007, the Thurgood Marshall College Fund published a study of minority recruiting practices by Fortune 400 companies and by government agencies that found that 13% of minority college graduates were recruited from HBCUs while 87% of minority college students were recruited from non-HBCU institutions.[16]

The above italicized statement is misleading because HBCUs make up only 3% of the nation's colleges and universities so of course a smaller percentage of minorities recruited out of HBCUs will pale in comparison to minorities recruited from non-HBCUs. And when I attempted to provide more context, it was promptly deleted. Also this same user, has made other reckless editing on the page that I attempted to rectify only for all the changes I made to be reverted (for example misplacing the annual HBCU conference content that belongs in "current status"). There are several exceptional things happening with HBCUs but the user in question only left one that I added. SemioneNation is clearly a troll wanting to corrupt the integrity and quality of wikipedia and am blocked from stopping it from happening. Broadmoor (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Umm no. Broadmoor has provided a completely biased and promotional view of this article. He says that my edits provide a false narrative of the current status of HBCUs when I got all my info from government backed sources. I never knew that government backed information was misleading. He quoted a bunch of articles that are biased and have false information. The statistics that I have posted show the true status of HBCUs in 2015-2017. Whether you want to agree with these statistics or not, they are absolutely true in terms of declining enrollment nationwide and the gap of black Americans getting degrees from HBCUs compared to Non-HBCU institutions in the 21st century. This is a FACT backed by government statistics. Nothing that I posted included my own opinion. The annual HBCU conference was moved to history because it belongs there. It does not describe the current status of HBCUs as a whole. He is trying to spin every fact listed to give an unrealistic light on the subject.

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!

Thanks for fixing the Mark Jonathan Davis page. I can't see what the revisions by Maria were, because she was subsequently blocked; what were the edits?

I also seem to be having some unwelcome vandalism on the Richard Cheese page; not sure why someone is hassling me. Any suggestions?

Thank you. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardcheese2 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

18:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Please protect Samantha Ruth Prabhu page atleast for a period of 1 year because many vandalisms have taken place in the past and may take place in the future. At Present, the page is unprotected. Please do not ignore this request. Bollywood junction (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bollywood junction: The page has been semi-protected since October 30, set to expire in October 2018. Are you confusing the possible lack of a visible padlock icon, which is just an editorial change that anyone can make, with the actual administrative protection? DMacks (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Let me know if you need more editing later down the road. Some of the organization could be better and it seems like the Nuclear isomers article is a lot more about general nuclear decay.HRouillier (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I like your idea of WP:CONCEPTDAB. Although my edits dwell on chemistry, it is never my intention to sideline the general reader.

One further complication is Peroxide_(disambiguation) already exists.

So I propose to convert Peroxide itself into the WP:CONCEPTDAB, with a header pointing to Peroxide_(disambiguation) (for pop music etc.) but with a list of chemical links woven into the lede.

Once I get going, I will need your help on creating hydroperoxide. --Smokefoot (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again for blocking 213.205.198.29. However, I strongly suspect the user behind that address has returned under 213.205.251.232 and continues the previous address' agenda. The Thrill of It All definitely needs semi-protection at this point. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE this user even admitted to block evasion and needs to be blocked. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Oops, was off-line for a few hours. Alexf blocked, and also protected the article. Thanks for keeping track of this clown. DMacks (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

	Hello DMacks
	Hello DMacks, I am a qualified laboratory specialist but i have not worked in that field or area for a long time. Anyway just a quick question how can i ( cut and paste ) while i am using the ( Sandbox ) for writing or editing. Regards Showerman 05. Showerman05 (talk) 06:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Showerman05. It depends if you are using the Visual Editor or the Source Editor. I know the source editor has standard cut/copy/paste function, because it uses the standard web-browser text field. I have heard that the visual editor is more user friendly (especially for new editors), but I do not know its specific features. Maybe ask at the WP:Teahouse or check Help:Editing? DMacks (talk) 08:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I know people like you seem to think you're absolutely better than other just because you've been around, and that you're obviously more important and intelligent, but I was stating facts that were missing since the last time someone edited that page. To sum up my feelings, I will state this: On a website you may be regarded as a hero, but in real-life, you're no better than anyone else who gets up and goes to work. Peace out bro Zborriie (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

19:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

In February you tagged the article Self-assembling peptide for copy editing when it really needed content revisions. That is not the place of the GOCE. I put a notice on the Biology Wikiproject. Hopefully this resolves the content issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HRouillier (talk • contribs) 17:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@HRouillier: I agree there are content issues, but there are also large chunks of non-article content visible embedded in the text. They appear to be either notes to an editor pointing to a ref to use for article expansion or else are captions for images that don't actually exist. And they're all caps, so even if it were viable content, I think fixing all-caps sentences is clearly a copy-editing target. See for example the all-caps chunk in the middle of Self-assembling peptide#Molecular paint or carpet peptides. DMacks (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

If that's all you wanted, I don't understand why you wouldn't just do it yourself. What you cited for was more work and closing up of loose ends on the article. Copy editing is the final step in the article cycle. This article is not ready for that, and the GOCE isn't going to research peptides. That sounds like a much more fit job for the Biology Wikiproject. Have a great day. HRouillier (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

There were tons of problems of this and maybe other sort, that I didn't have time to figure out how to actually fix. As usual, fix if you can quickly, else tag to alert others is standard. Thank you for doing your part. If you don't intend to fix copy-editing problems that you know exist, maybe you shouldn't be removing the copy-editing tag. Wikipedia:Basic copyediting is not restricted to end-of-editorial process, but is explicitly for even editors who don't know enough to work on content. DMacks (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The capitalized chunks are for future figures. Copy editing would make it harder for future editors to know what figures to add. They could be moved to the talk page I suppose, but since the article will likely undergo massive revision because I properly alerted the Biology project, we can worry about the copy editing then.

From the link you posted copy editing consists of:

1.1.1 Grammar checkers

1.1.2 Commonly confused words

1.1.3 Capitalization and formatting

1.1.4 Punctuation

1.1.5 Style

1.1.6 Article elements

1.1.7 Contractions

I'm not removing the capitalized chunks for future editors of the article. There aren't any glaring other problems.

It has been reviewed by the GOCE, hence the tag.

"Editorial notes and article captions that suggest future work, but it's been years-dormant" are not the focus of the GOCE. Hope you have a great day. HRouillier (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense. The article is a long-term mess:( DMacks (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for your edits to Demetrius Klee Lopes and to the image file. You made it shorter but somehow better! -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! DMacks (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Wishing DMacks a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

W00t! Thanks Chris troutman et al. I guess I should celebrate by the usual drinking of decade-old wringer-bucket water? DMacks (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) My understanding was that the mop-bucket water is for the LTA audience. Now might be a good time to wash the t-shirt they issued you a decade ago.

Chris Troutman (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

If it weren't for that T-shirt, created in the time between by first edit and my RfA, do you think I would really have signed up for this much abuse^Wreward as an admin? DMacks (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	iam new to wikipedia this user helped me with the formalities. thanks:) Starunique (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

19:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, DMacks. You have new messages at Talk:Randolph family of Virginia.
Message added 23:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear DMacks, I am new to editing, in fact this was the first, and I humbly apologize for seeming to be disruptive. I am not entirely sure what to do next or whether this post will reach you...... 23:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC) (24th Nov 2017 11:03 UK time) I have now discovered that it has and I can add to it. One or two of the changes I made to your page concerned the assertion that CO2 is a 'major' greenhouse gas when, comparatively, it is extremely small and I since noticed that this had been mentioned to you before by others. Similarly I added '...of which water vapour is by far the most abundant,' Perhaps you could think about these and respond when you wish. The other bits you removed we can discuss another time if you want. Kind regards. DMcLondon (talk)

Oops! --Ongeian Dog (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries:) DMacks (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Sorry - just trying to get the message out to as many people as we thought might be interested. Thought we'd try some of the science WikiProjects as well. I'll take your name off the list for the next go-round. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

20:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Why not stub the article if its too promotional? It is a Populated, legally recognized place in Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh and has a population of 138,923. It is notable per Wikipedia:GEOLAND. Thanks. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to write a stub (or more, obviously) if you have something some information and a ref. I had the thought to salvage a stub, but I didn't look beyond what was in the article. I did check half of the refs--one was a page that does not exist despite being added to the article the same day I checked and the other did not appear to mention this place (according to Google Translate), and the editor who wrote it has a pattern of problematic content. So I went with WP:TNT. Looking more closely at the deleted content, there was also copyvio. DMacks (talk) 04:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my edit. I had a feeling shortly after saving that I had made a mistake. Saralicia (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for helping keep stubs organized! DMacks (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!

Hello, DMacks. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

17:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Glowing pickle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Line voltage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello. What was wrong with this link (which demonstrates an exotic application of the technology) I posted on the Xenon arc-lamp page?

http://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10080/150_read-21807/#/gallery/26638 

Archolman | User talk:Archolman 15:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

DMacks! Completely agree with you and have no intention of advertising. I was just adding the website to the place where the brand was already mentioned. This will help users to go to the site easily. There is no new brand reference added to any of the pages by me and you can rest assured that will not be done ever

Hey, information has been removed that is pertinent to the LitRPG genre (in specific regards to trademarks) by an anonymous user who is undeniably defending the person in question despite the fact that both sides are shown and the article is as impartial as possible at the present time. As you can see in the previous logs, this information was added due to the fact that the original line was not only non-descriptive, but also required more citation. The anonymous user not only violated Wikipedia guidelines by repeatedly removing information claiming rumour and 'erroneously salicous' comments despite the information being readily available in the references, but also succeeded in having the truth removed due to this (temporary) block. The information regarding the trademark is all there, and the only reason forum posts are utilised in showing people's displeasure is because that is, as of now, the only proof, and will likely remain as the only proof due to the fact that it's niche genre, not an atomic weapon ready to explode. GuyOnACouch (talk) 10:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dmacks, There were recent additions to the LitRPG wiki, all based on current and historical events. The trademark incidents have a vital part in LitRPG history as it resulted in the spawning of two closely related subgenres and was the tipping point relating to public opinion relating to LitRPG and GameLit. The updated history was likely initially biased, however, this was pared down by several subsequent efforts, despite persistent removal of the part in question. The end result was a partially biased, but at least sourced, section. Normally, editing of this would be sufficient to improve impartiality and sources. Instead, nebulous accusations of "facebook rant[ing]" and "erroneous salacious comments" were levied, precipitating in the removal of sourced material. Finally, the section was removed on the grounds of two forum posts, used to demonstrate public opinion.

This seems like blatant obscurantism, rather than rectifying an exceedingly minor part, no longer than a single sentence/line, the IP 71.218.77.115 elected to remove the entire section on the basis of "more forum posts". Whether this is because he believes that the inclusion of forum material in references is the issue here, or whether he believes sourced accounts of the proceedings amounts to a forum post, is unknown to me.

This entire incident has gotten people very hot and flustered on both sides, I tried to represent the reciprocated sentiment in the addition, as best I could. I am inherently biased, I accept that. However, I tried to make what was an evocative topic as evenhanded as possible, while presenting all the facts. Does that mean that I was totally impartial? No. However, neither are scientific papers, which should be the pinnacle of impartiality. It’s a worthy but often unattainable goal.

The way I believe wiki should work is people add to each other's entries, editing where necessary. Not obfuscating important events and obliterating entire topics because someone believes they have a monopoly on public opinion.

Regards

Alexis

2A00:23C5:5B90:DC00:44D3:41AB:87A:42A5 (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Take it to the article talkpage, as the standard for resolving a dispute about article content. I'm acting as an admin to quench the edit-war--that's not a valid way to resolve content disputes. DMacks (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

17:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)