User talk:DMacks/Archive 7

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.

Can you please chime in here about the WSJ cite User_talk:NeilN#Dian_Fossey? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A small point, but your change of fibre to fiber in Kapok is not consistent with WP:RETAIN - the article started out in Commonwealth English and should probably continue that way. Regards.  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   23:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The change was made as part of a bunch of such edits, the few I did spot-check were wrong so I mostly assumed the rest were also. DMacks (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that you are an administrator and in academics.

This is a heated discussion in the Talk:Barack Obama page.

There are some people who insists that President Obama is a professor. There are some that want to diminish his achievements. I take the neutral ground.

I think there is confusion between Professor and professor. The difference escapes many people in the general public. Obama was a part time faculty member and was given the title of Lecturer then Senior Lecturer. Senior Lecturer is very honorable but it's not the same as Professor and Chair.

What do you think? Does the average person know the difference between Professor, the title and professor, the generic profession? I think not. To prevent confusion and misunderstanding and not to diminish the man nor inflate his resume, I think that a simple mention that he was on the part time faculty at the University of Chicago Law School where he was a Lecturer and later Senior Lecturer is very honest, accurate, and neutral.

Please help clarify the professor/Professor question JB50000 (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw you protected Arpan Sharma. Please replace the current (incorrect) protection template by a more correct one, like {{Pp-protected}}. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Had been semi, I forgot to retemplate when making it full. DMacks (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand. I was just wikignoming. :) Debresser (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries:) Happy editing! DMacks (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is my class again. Thank you for your comments and I'll certainly work on those issues this term. I am incorporating a peer review component and so hopefully that will help eliminate some of these issues. Ajm mich (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You see no evidence that I won't call any words a squeaky voice ever again. Who cares? --Neptunerover (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, DMacks; just to let you know, I would now support an indef block of the above user, given the implications of the above comment. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 16:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There were some recent remarks in Talk:perpetual motion about idiots associated with a particular behavior. I'd like to ask here what might be done about different idiots exhibiting a different idiotic behavior, "know-it-all-ness". They censor (as in "delete") posts even in the talk page, baldly claiming something is not relevant to improving the article, instead of actually discussing why or why not something might be relevant to improving the article (they are not supporting their actions with any evidence!). And of course anyone who objects is limited in being able to revert the deletions, lest accusations of "edit warring" begin flying. So, what might be done? Thanks in advance! V (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, DMacks. You have new messages at 75.118.188.189's talk page.
Message added 22:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 22:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message regarding Parsecboy

He keeps shortening one word to an abreviaton and he seems to feel that that the word "Screw" is an acurate discription of a screw propeller for shipping article - i have changed this to the correct wording of either "Propeller" or "Screw propeller" on several article and he keeps reverting them!

I have also pointed out the the screw propeller was designed by Francis Pettit Smith in England in the 1800s so British terminology applies and not a shortened Americanised version.

There is no critisim of being American meant in any way.

I would welcome your input on this matter.

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that several months ago you changed the date that Conroe High was built from 1964, to 1969. This is incorrect. The current campus of Conroe High was built and used in 1964. Year books, as well as students from that year, should all be able to verify this to be factual. I am curious as to where you got your sources from. I only ask this because I wonder what else was posted on the page from other individuals that is also not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Texan420 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Will have to dig into the history here after work today. DMacks (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your neutrality although I did think the page was protected far too quickly. There is far more important content in the article than for protection to centre around the video IMO. There are other edits needing to be made to the text. I suggest that it is not good for the article that the video be made central to it. Let me know what you think.DMSBel (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Further Atom and others bringing up of the censorship argument is ridiculous - quite simply and I make no apology for saying it a hundred times censorship can only mean the removal of the option to view something. INLINE Linking DOES NOT remove that option, it maintains it. It is only one click away. The freeze frame (ie before one plays it) of the video is simply gross - a long drip of semen hanging from the penis. So does an ejaculation begin with semen trickling out of the penis first, that is the impression the freeze-frame could be interpreted as giving.DMSBel (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but you don't need to explain privately to me your viewpoint. My talk-page is not the place for discussing that article's content or rehashing an RfC. DMacks (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, my comment still stands regards page protection - I had mentioned it in the discussion and so has another editor (postoak), we both agreed that the page had been protected unnecessarily, one other editor (CIS) pointed out you were neutral, and I see that. I do not wish to try to moderate the RfC, as it would be improper, but it needs keeping on track (by that I mean kept to the point of the discussion) if people keep going on about removal then it is going off track, because it was not started to discuss removal - is that not your role here, if not please tell me who is able to arbitrate? I have put a lot of effort into the RfC, especially in my intro to keep it unbiased. You have told me to disengage there. A little moderation would help the process. I do not mean removing comments, rather someone to say stick to the point. But that has been lacking. If people start saying they oppose it being removed, or support it being removed - that is off the point of the RfC - which is to discuss the use of an INLINE LINK. I can be a right pain when I need to be as you can see.:-)82.18.164.15 (DMSBel)(talk) 00:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way I have been around Wikipedia for short enough to know when it ceases to look like an encyclopedia - i don't "swim" here all the time, that way I know when something is descending into a joke (or worse). Apologies for not logging in.82.18.164.15 (DMSBel)(talk) 00:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

A big thank you, on behalf of lots of American baseball fans, for putting the Walter Johnson article back to the way it was, and should be. For all of us who were born before, or not too long after, Sir Walter hung up his cleats, the name Walter Johnson has one, and only one, meaning! DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. DMacks (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Do not call me a dumb meme. FOr a start off I am not dumb andI do not know what meme means —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.186.229 (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

yes it was an attemp for somebody to help me. I do not know why the idiot blocked me. I didnt do anything wrong. I am only trying to learn81.141.186.229 (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The DataLounge article is ridiculously long. The site does not merit that kind of exhaustive entry, especially considering that it is a commercial venture in the first place. Please edit. There's a lot of unnecessary material in this article. I don't understand why my edits were rejected. My intent was not vandalism. It was to transform it it into something encyclopedic and appropriate for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.198.113 (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Your intent sounds good. The way you went about it was indistinguishable from vandalism:( Repeated removal of on-topic cited info without explanation/discussion triggered a few different red-flags in the change logs. DMacks (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What does Santorum's views have to do with Richard Hayne? Or rather how do you support specifying homosexuality and the supposed Santorum controversy into a another person's article? Why are all you wikipedia editor's so arrogant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.45.226 (talk)

It appears to be cited and it is directly about Hayne (something he said about Santorum), therefore it's reasonable content on its face--meets WP:V policy. Removing reasonable content without explanation is a behavior that is indistinguishable from the normal vandalism we see on Wikipedia every day. I would agree that the content does delve too far off-topic, for example discussing Santorum in manners unrelated to Hayne. But if a public person does something that reliable sources decided to report, well that's the standard for inclusion. DMacks (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks fellow vandal fighter for reverting vandalism on my userpage. I am actually going to file an abuse report against that IP, they have been blocked allot more than 5 times! Thanks Acather96 (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Travis "the dick" archer. I do not think that Travis "the dick" archer fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because WP:BLP is not a speedy deletion reason. The plausibly contentious content has already been removed, speedy deletion is not warrented. I request that you consider not re-tagging Travis "the dick" archer for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES ^(talk) 21:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Pure unsourced bio with potentially negative implications runs into {{db-attack}}. But we'll let afd sort it out. DMacks (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd better make it clear that I'm not accusing you of mis-using your discretion not to delete, merely that I saw more red-flags over its short edit history than you did. DMacks (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I tend to use speedy tags or do speedy deletes only in the most clear-cut cases. I probably decline more tags than I accept. DES ^(talk) 01:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I see you have protected the page again and while the pornographic content is in it. The content is now proven porn - beyond any doubt. That is why it is being deleted. I strongly object to it being protected. Also the pictures were re-inserted during an already heated discussion about the video. There is no consensus to keep either. Please remove the protection.DMSBel (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• DISAGREE. The content is not pornographic. It is scientific and encyclopedic. Protection is in place to prevent edit warring. Please take your objections back to the article's Discussion page.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  12:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I stopped an edit war. I can either protect the page or block the editors involved--I chose the former so you can discuss your problems maturely instead of futilely remove/reinsert/repeat/get-frustrated/etc. From the discussion on the talk-page, "it is porn" is definitely not even a majority opinion, and it is definitely not a clearcut case supported by site policy, therefore "must be removed immediately because it is beyond any doubt porn" fails on three points. DMacks (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

DMacs, I'm not trying to add anything irrelevant, and not trying to cause a problem. But I'm really surprised that as wikipedia has grown, it doesn't have an external link to the American Chemical Society Committee on Nomenclature at the major articles that deal with chemical nomenclature. It seems this link will make such articles better. It can be a powerful resoyrce to teachers, students, and others who want to learn the precise name of a material. Do you agree? MarkBenvenuto (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an official site about the formal nomenclature should be linked from articles about nomenclature, not every article that has a compound or other entity that is named. I did not remove it from IUPAC nomenclature of organic chemistry, for example. DMacks (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

DMacks, thanks for the quick reply. I have a question though, that will sound a bit snarky. I agree that every element, for instance, does not automatically have to be linked with nomenclature, as there are not many nomenclature questions specific to so many of the elements. But, here's the question: where is a logical place to draw the line? Organic functionality, for example, routinely has a host of nomenclature questions. I know, from having taught it, or worked with folks who have taught it, for years. What do you think? I'd value your opinion.

MarkBenvenuto (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:EL is a standard guideline for external-links. It prescribes pretty much exactly what I said: the specific rule for naming a functional group or other class of compounds is viable content and could be included directly in an article (with citations to the appropriate formal nomenclature doc from IUPAC, ACS, etc). However, I cannot think of anything else from the ACS nomenclature group that is relevant to that type of article. An article about a functional group is about that functional group, including nomenclature of it and reference to supporting information specifically for nomenclature of it. "Nomenclature in general" is a separate wikipedia article that is for content on that broader topic. WP:ELNO#1 and WP:ELNO#13 for specific articles that are about things that have nomenclature, WP:ELYES#3 and maybe WP:ELYES#1 for articles about nomenclature itself. DMacks (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

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

JFW | T@lk 20:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dmacks,

First, I expect you to just delete this rather than actually respond to it and, most likely ban me. That's what makes this site so silly.

My question is, however, how can you take this site so seriously. I mean in all honesty, it would be substantially more beneficial (and therefor logical) on your own part to spend the time you edit to learn - oh, but you don't get those meaningless and incestuous Wiki accolades if you don't waste time editing. Indeed, Wikipedia has degenerated into a self aggrandize clique of individuals who spend an excessive amount of time on Wikipedia who laud each other and provide special privileges to each other. It's so silly.

The problem with this site is that any one can change the information and, while it is sometimes likely assiduous people such as yourself will catch it, they also go unnoticed. There is also no one with their reputation on the proverbial line so no one has a true incentive to maintain its accuracy.

So, how can you take Wikipedia do seriously?

PS Pedantic implies uncreative - is this what you want to say in your user page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.7.113 (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I take this site seriously because it's a great starting-point to learn things. Your arguments about its usefulness, risk of vandalism, etc. have all been done before, and one of the marvels is that we *do* manage to keep it as clean as it is. Actual formal published studies have been done--we're here with this system because it actually works pretty well both in terms of correctness and cleanup. I don't care about accolades (though it's nice to feel appreciated) or power (I'm just trying to help people), I'm here to get an encyclopedia written. I meant exactly what I wrote (that's why I wrote it)...I'm not efficient or especially creative in my writing style but rather dwell on the details of the meaning and technical aspects ("function over form"). DMacks (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You cannot intelligently address my points by saying they've been raised before, nor can you by simply say it's impressive at how much (or little depending on one's perspective) is corrected. These are indeed silly and non-cogent responses. Also, pretty well is meaningless for many uses (eg, paper writing). On a less substantive matter, my point is that the accolades are meaningless because they are just from an incestuous group -- exactly like the Oscars, but with a smaller pool to draw on (also, if you don't care about something it should not affect you (ie, they should not make you feel appreciated since people tend to have some sentiments towards thing they care about)). I do appreciate your not banning me simply because I disagreed. Again, I still don't see the value to an individual spending time on the custodianship of Wikipedia. I see overall value, no doubt, just not on an individual basis.

PS As an economist, I too am a 'function over form' individual, but that is not at all a sufficient condition for one being unimaginative. Indeed, if you dwell too much of the presentation the content itself may well be pedantic -- I hate Pointpoint for this very reason. I personally would much prefer creativity in the theory, product, or argument than in the presentation! My point is actually a compliment: I wouldn't be self deprecating.

PPS I've edited a couple of my comments which I felt were less than civil. Apologies.

(no worries, I get lots of heated comments. I tend to be self-deprecating in real life too:) I did not intend to address some of your points directly...couldn't think of anything to add, no reason for me to parrot others who have already answered it properly (I'm no expert, just a happy user). But Wikipedia definitely isn't intended to be "the source" for a serious academic project--not assured of complete or correct material even if all vandalism is repaired promptly. There certainly is lots of correct and/or complete info, but if it actually matters there's no substitute for checking with the cited refs to verify what's written. But it is a place to get some ideas or find those refs to learn from more reliable sources. One of the reasons I spend time working here is because I know many people do think it's much more than it is--they write school assignments based on it alone, or else use the ideas and copy the images in their college papers in conjunction with other sources. I know my students do this, so I'd rather they get decent info. I try to watch the pages related to my lecture topics carefully because I know my students will say "I was reading..." or "I heard that...". I'd rather they read or hear the right thing, and I may as well correct/extend it here so everyone else benefits too rather than just talking to one or two students of mine. The amount of time I spend is well more than the benefit I or my students get from it at the time...it's definitely in the realm of volunteer work that I do because I think it's worthwhile to have this resource available. Without some folks willing to do the grunt work, the project itself really wouldn't have a chance. Similar sites where only vetted writers contribute haven't worked out. Even Veropedia, which was just going to gather good articles from Wikipedia, recheck them, and present that coherent "verified" subset failed miserably. I have no idea what the academic/"economist" perspective is on things like open-source software, but similar idea. Always happy to discuss, DMacks (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Brown University has been a recurring candidate for the Universities Collaboration of the Month but it has been short the votes necessary to win on several occasions. If you'd like to see a concerted effort to improve the article on your alma mater, please drop by the collaboration page to cast your vote. Also feel free to help improve our current collaborations during their last few days. Cheers! -Mabeenot (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It is lacking certain information. For one, it lacks that strings are what are often studied in the field, and that strings have two kinds of randomness. The fist kind is frequency - that of each of every kind of alphanumeric. The second kind is that of order, which has two suborders. They are group and symmetry orders. The string "11110000" has the group order. The string "10101010" has the symmetry order. These two types are differentiated from ordinary, frequency-based randomness in that group and symmetry orders together are detectable through pseudorandom algorithms, which are able to discriminate between analogue and digital types of noise. I think this info can go in Randomness because it explicitly discriminates between two types of nominal "randomness" in theory and in practice (system follows content). I am willing to contribute to the article if allowed. Leave a message if you wish. GreySun (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to see more actual good content in that page. The Randomness page is only semiprotected--your account was registered a while ago and made a bunch of edits, so I do not think the semi prevents you from editing that article directly. Let me know if are having a problem doing so and maybe there is some setting that needs tweaking. DMacks (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Following suit from the archival of the discussion at Talk:Ejaculation, I archived Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Discussion on offensive material, where participants were basically continuing the same argument following the archival. If you're unfamiliar with this page, it was split off from a Village pump section when it got too long, regards the same issues, and the same participants. I've placed an archive box on the entire page and archived it manually to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 58. People are still trying to post responses despite the archive box, so I was wondering if you thought deleting that subpage might be warranted, since the entire discussion is already in the archives anyway. Thanks. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:37, 25 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that I ahev been blocked agian. All I am trying to do is edit in the sandbox to practice and I get blocked for another 4 weeks. I find this deeply distressing and you do not seem to be able to help me #### previuolsy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.189.49 (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Your failures to figure it out (if taken as you state) go back at least to June 2009. Your contributions that you say you are using to test go waaaay beyond anything even close to acceptable. We can no longer assume you are editing in good faith, based on your long history of disruption and abuse of the privlege of editing. You are blocked to prevent your disrupting our encyclopedia. DMacks (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that I have been blocked again. All I am trying to do is edit in the sandbox to practice and I get blocked for another 4 weeks. I find this deeply distressing and you do not seem to be able to help me #### previously 81.141.189.49 I will not try to edit any pages now for a week to show that I am genuine#### —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.189.49 (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

One month. The block is one month. DMacks (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

OK I am sorry i will not try again for a couple of weeks can you tell me where I can get some help? I have already got somehwer but I have not had internet for more than 4 months so to say it goes back til June is not correct. Please try and support people who only want to learn 81.141.189.49 (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There is forensic evidence of edits from same/neighboring machines on your network and the behavior pattern is the same. There is no evidence except your claim to the contrary, and this edit pattern includes bad-faith edits here, so we can't really take anything from your set of machines with much trust. WP:SANDBOX is the place to practice (once your block expires...if you edit before then, your block will be expanded), WP:HELP is a place to learn about how Wikipedia works. DMacks (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thnk you at last you have given me a place to practice. I am very sorry. I promise I will not edit any pages. I am not a disingenious person I promise!!!!I sincerley swear to you that I have not not had internet before Oct 20009. I jsut want some one to help me learn something new nad excting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.189.49 (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And now the promised block for editing around an existing block has come to pass. Go away. DMacks (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

WHY I AM ALLOWED TO EDIT MY OWN PAGE AND USE THE SAND BOX I HAVE DONE NOTHING ELSE????81.141.186.150 (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC) ALl I have done is edit my own page

WP:NPA in your test edits, both in sandbox and on talk-page. You were warned, you ignored, you get the consequences. I repeat, your editing privlege is administratively revoked for 1 month. DMacks (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

OK had to find out what :WP:NPA meant I have now got a user ID to so I hope this will be OK Jontyjaz (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:Genetic code/GA1. I have de-listed the article as the referencing is so poor. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to place a block template on FourChan's talk page. :) - Zhang He (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Database is lagging so badly, I kept getting "Wikipedia is having a problem..." until just now:/ DMacks (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed. That pink database lag table kept appearing. - Zhang He (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you deleted my talk page, located here (obviously now a redlink) and was wondering if you could please view and tell me what the content was, seeing as it was obviously directed at me and I didn't get to see it. If it is not appropriate on wiki then please feel free to email me, as I will be setting up that particular function in about 2 minutes. Much obliged. Snaisybelle (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Your usertalk and user pages were personal attacks posted by User:45g. There was no redeeming or constructive content. DMacks (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You removed information from the SCHS wikipedia page. - I have re-added them, please review the history tab on why. They were not copied directly from the schs.../organizations sublink, they were added one by one, followed by students/faculty adding in aditional information regarding their clubs. It was unjustifyable to remove such information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.93.53.250 (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on disabling the plugin. Thanks for letting me know! Xwomanizerx (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks! I was sort of hoping someone would notice my cries for help. I just hate beaurocracy, and this was way more easier for me. Sorry about that :) Villy (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I take it that I am now unblocked!!!

You are not very nice people and have blocked me constanly all I was trying to do was practice and you took humbrage and called me a neme what ever that means —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.186.150 (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For being one of our best admins. Keep it up, The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

i didnt realise i was actually editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfarr92 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries! DMacks (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Given you've been involved in some reverts and blocks, would you care to comment on whether you think JN is the same as any of the others I list at the SPI.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued good work on the Coffee article. If I knew how to give one of those awards that one sees on the use pages i would.--Dunshocking (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks:) I think you're thinking of Wikipedia:Barnstars? DMacks (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe our boy may also be a sockpuppeteer; take a look at the edit history of User:Lawbloggerz and IP 76.195.210.152, and compare them to User:Law&gaming! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup. And he even says he will be socking to get the article rewritten to avoid scrutiny of COI. Lawbloggerz CU data is almost certainly too-old. 76 geolocates as expected for self-proclaimed subject of article.DMacks (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

A logical argument is not a soapbox. Please cease and desist your hegemonic attacks. For those who are unaware the caliber of knowledge that can be posted to Wikipedia is controlled by several factors. Most of them make perfect sense and mirror academic standards, such as the need to verify source material and validate the truthfulness of information it collects. While some provide only window dressing for the attempt to obscure the words of the minority.

Entire pages of work will be erased because the information provided is not "prolific" enough to be included, not "important" enough to grace the Servers of Wikipedia. So-called trivial information will be summarily deleted without even a by your leave. In essence Truth will be deleted and ignored because the higher wikipedian powers will deign that these or those particular truths are not worthy of being recorded. . .they seem to believe some truths matter to too few people to be worth annotating to the record books.

I don't know about you . . .but I believe that all truths are worthy of being recorded. From the great to the small to the truths within us all . . .everything is worthy of inclusion. In fact wasn't that the point of the wikipedian process in the first place. But, like so many freedom fighters before them, the libertine wikipedians eventually gave in to the fascist policies of their enemies and began censoring their posts.

Listen to me, AS SOON AS WIKIPEDIA BECAME A BUSINESS INTEREST HEGEMONY CREEPED INTO THEIR PEER REVIEW PROCESS.

Now people are being told, after treatises of their work has already been deleted, that they have nothing to contribute . . .that their voices are not worthy of being told. Even though they are able to verify their information as factually true and not conjecture, even though their information matters in a great or small way to a small or large subset of our society. Even though they are right, they are denied.

Oh the arrogance of such people. We have a word for them in my field. Ethnocentrists. They believe that they have the capacity to judge the right and wrongness of the world or knowledge, even if they have no experience with what they are judging. They believe that their superior intellect is capable of filtering out which information is not important to you. Instead of letting the people decide which information they want to view; they take the decision away from you. They make it for you . . .and the worst part is they will say it is for your own good.

Remember fascism always begins with the introduction of policies or laws that are supposed to "better control people for their own good and the greater good of all". This is no less than evil.

My mother and father and hopefully yours as well had our best interests at heart. They knew us and in a perfect world, helped us to make the correct decisions. Neither the government or Wikipedia are our parents . . .and they have NO right to act like they are.

It is up to us to judge whether any facts are relevant in our lives or not, not the 'editors' of wikipedia. Let them judge whether or not something is true, and let us judge whether of not it is relevant... |--Chinatown670 (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:N is consensus policy. Nobody is preventing you from setting up your own wiki site that has alternative policies. DMacks (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:N is contrary to the founding principles of Wikipedia. One of the main reasons Wikipedia exists is to fight academic and social censorship. When Wikipedia was created it was not supposed to be about notability, but fact. And to the fact that it is "consensus" it is common for masses of people now and in history to vote away their freedom because A. They didn't understand what was really at stake when they were voting or B. They gladly bowed to fascism in exchange for social niceties. As long as WP:N exists Wikipedia and all it's editors are proving themselves to be hypocrites. --Chinatown670 (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I really don't care about any of your personal concerns with WP:N, and my (or anyone or any-article's) talk-page is no place to get it overturned, because it smacks of me trying to be sneaky about it. There are places to discuss changing current policy, but that's where to do it, and until they are changed, they stand as policy. I have a feeling this does not sit well with you. That's your right, but you do not have a right to use the private resources of Wikipedia as you see fit or as you understand or think about it. DMacks (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You should care. That is if you actually care about the future of wikipedia or it's founding principles. And everyone has a right to use the resources of Wikipedia in a manner which they believe in. That is the point of the Wikipedian process. Wikipedia was supposed to be an Athenian democratic process for posting and reviewing knowledge. You have just proved that the new policy of Wikipedia is fascistic and that your intent is to control when and how people react and act in Wikipedia. This is nothing short of thought control. These policies must be changed. Editors like yourself must be made to understand the grandiosity that Wikipedia must aspire to. I feel sorry that the only way you can respond to me is by using an ad hominem attack to attempt, I can only speculate, to get some kind of rise or emotional reaction out of me. I'm sorry but for me this is purely scientific. I try to put my ego aside when I work on Wikipedia-the WORLD'S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE. Perhaps you should try to as well. But if it makes you feel better about yourself sir---OW MY FEELINGS! --Chinatown670 (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"These policies must be changed." Again, my talk-page is not the place to make that happen, even if I completely agree with you. If you really want to make change happen, go find the appropriate place to do it. Regardless, do not post any more about it here. DMacks (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. You keep quoting me some kind of regulation, but all they represent are flawed policies created by flawed beings. I'm attempting to start a grass-roots effort here. Do you not believe that it is up to the individual to decide for himself the importance of information? There is no such thing as appropriate and inappropriate. Do not worry. These are just limited human paradigms attempting to understand reality and classify it. They are often mistaken. Join with me and with others like us we can attempt to stem the tide of moral and corporate control over Wikipedia. --Chinatown670 (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your intent--current policy is in line with my thoughts about who WP should be and I do not support changing WP:N to anything like the way you are suggesting.DMacks (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Bum: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. CarrotMan (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I had tried to...by the time I was able to load the page to do it ("database lagged" or some similar problem?), editor had already vandalized again and you had reverted and warned. Piling-on warnings for a first-time editor is bad. See also WP:DTTR perhaps?DMacks (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. No harm in keeping people on their toes though, I suppose. :-) CarrotMan (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Happy editing! DMacks (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your attention there, I am also watching the page, discussion is the preferred option, there are some links not naming the woman as she is not clearly front on visible, so as it is in doubt we have no need to name her either, she has her own article where presently there is nothing about this incident, of course if someone wants to present citations and a case for adding anything that gains consensus is totally fine, but you know all that, for the time being we have agreed on what we have, this is a thank you for your attention. Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually know very little about the actual issue, other than that there are lots of not-really-WP:RS sources used to make WP:BLP claims that are not supported by the good sources. It seems like the current article is the result of some good editorial work, and the inline instruction to discuss to get consensus for change from it is a very nice way of keeping the article free from rumor and other problems. I don't know how the article got on my watchlist, so I just lean hard on that inline comment since it seems to be based on good WP editor work and the only people who add the other details are only drive-by contributors who don't seem interested in actually supporting their position in a discussion. Thanks to everyone involved in making a decent piece of content out of an apparently rumor-filled topic! DMacks (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I really am wondering why from a personal opinion not because as i didn't relate it to anything or say what it was, wanting this personal opinion from you. please reply this personal view of deleting my page.

Ricki* —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldricki (talk • contribs) 12:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, but my opinion is not the basis for my admin actions. Your article probably failed one (or maybe more) of the WP:CSD criteria. DMacks (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that block, best. Off2riorob (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! DMacks (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how anybody but me warned him. It would be far better if an administrator did that. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep this on ANI, where you started the discussion. DMacks (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I give up you keep trying to block me for no reason —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.186.229 (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, DMacks. You have new messages at Allen4names's talk page.
Message added 00:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, DMacks. You have new messages at Rrburke's talk page.
Message added 13:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Rrburke (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

DMacks,

I recieved your email. Actually, NPOV is one of the three core wiki policies, and cannot be changed even with consensus.

I'm not making that up. In part is says:

"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research." Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

My change (and it was one change) changed the title to an NPOV title. I won't move the page (and change the title of the page) only because I've not actually done that before and wouldn't want to damage the rest of the page by trying it, however, I think my change falls under policy. Bear in mind, if I'm right, the consensus on the page becomes moot, no matter which way it goes. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 17:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(continued/responded on User talk:KoshVorlon where I had originally posted) DMacks (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I came upon the site and the information that is stating that it's an MLM (multi-level marking) system is wrong. For one, it's illegal in the financial industry, you can't force financial products upon people. Two, if WFG is and MLM then same should be addressed about Primerica, which neither is an MLM. I've tried to correct the misrepresentation but I suppose you keep on changing it back? I really don't know how wiki works so if it was a bot or something my apologies.

Thanks

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Prezgres (talk • contribs) 19:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a real person. But the statement that it's an MLM is explicitly supported by the source cited in the World Financial Group article. The sources specifically identify World Financial, not some parent/subsidiary/assocated company. If you have other reliable sources that explicitly say this is not true (i,.e., not just your logical explanation of why you don't think so), that could also be added to the article. But verifiability policy says the content is valid because there is reliable source for it. There are several discussions about it on the article talk-page too. If you have new sources to bring, feel free to start a discussion there. Now that you know your idea is disputed, WP:BRD says ball's in your court to get some consensus on the matter to implement your change.DMacks (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi DMacks--I have removed the DB-F6 template from the file page, and removed the deletable caption template from the article. Cheers, - Gump Stump (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

dont block my page its annoying —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.158.163 (talk)

Misuse of Wikipedia leads to blocks. If you get blocked, it's entirely because of what you did to bring that upon yourself. DMacks (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Really the levorotary form is responsible for the analgetic effect. The R vs S set aside. Polamidon is L-Methadon. Check it out. They don't talk about R/S. 70.137.131.62 (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at chirality (chemistry)#By configuration: R- and S- to see why R is not incorrect, but rather just a different system. The L system is specific for each type of molecule, whereas the R is universally understood from the structure itself (rather than by analogy to other ones). One talks about a physical property analyzed from a sample of (and specific to) the chemical, one talks about direct analysis of the structure from basic chemistry. You're welcome to add additional/alternate designators (with cited refs obviously) but not at the expense of other equally verifiable and chemically correct ones. DMacks (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Now I wonder, is it the (L) enantiomer in the D/L counting method, or the (l) optical isomer, or are they the same in this case? Thank you for fixing it. 70.137.131.62 (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Good question! The trade-name capitalizes the "L" but calls is "levo", which looks like a complete mix of the two ideas. I'll try to find some articles at work tomorrow. DMacks (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly clear that the enantiomer concerned is the l-form, better referred to these days as the (−)-form, which is also the (R)-form. You can't use the D/L descriptors (technically known as the Fischer–Rosanoff convention) except for sugars and amino acids: the Fischer–Rosanoff system is simply undefined for other compounds. Incidentally, the other enantiomer also seems to have analgesic effects (US6897242), but also higher undesired effects [1]. Physchim62 (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems as if the opioid effect of the d-isomer is about (at least) one order of magnitude less, but it has some NMDA antagonist effect, which may contribute to certain analgetic properties. Anyway this mix of notations was something I stumbled over. Some article described the side effects at S-T interval etc. as an effect of the additive chloropropanol in iv-solutions, which would not be observed with the oral preparations. I'll try to find that again. 70.137.131.62 (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Why you call it a hoax? And where it was discussed that Coming Soon does not meet the notability policy? And why you vandalise the discussion page instead of answering posted on it question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.23.253.1 (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The most recent discussion is at Talk:Zoophilia#Zoophilia in fantasy section?, and a more substantial and formal discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coming Soon (2006 film). Several editors have gotten blocked and several article pages have gotten locked due to repeated attempts to promote this film. There is apparent consensus that it is not appropriate, and also consensus that there is a widespread effort by several editors to weasel it in. The harder it was pushed to include, the harder they have made it to spread even a discussion about it. DMacks (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

So, it seems that Wikipedia is censored (despite what's said on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Wikipedia_is_not). It is somewhat obvious that the film should have at least a stub. 83.23.253.1 (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is WP:CONSENSUS that the film does not have the minimum WP:NOTABILITY to merit a page.DMacks (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

hi DMacks,

I've tried to add a Churchvilel, PA resident to the Churchville's 'Notable natives and residents' section. could you, please, help me with that and tell me why it didn't work?

thanks!

Lanochka —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanochka (talk • contribs) 03:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Not notable, therefore not listable in a "notable natives and residents" section. Responded with links (again!) on your talk-page. DMacks (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

hi again, DMacks,

I'm sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia(editing). That was my first time editing a page. I don't know how to add msgs to my previous question.

Would that be considered as a notable resident? he was noted in newspapers and on tv:

Bucks bizman recovers B-17 http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/86704107.html

Bucks man salvages the Swamp Ghost http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/courier_times/courier_times_news_details/article/28/2010/april/14/bucks-man-salvages-the-swamp-ghost.html

on CBS3 (twice) http://cbs3.com/video/[email protected] http://cbs3.com/video/[email protected]

may I add these links?

thanks for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanochka (talk • contribs) 03:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(Lanochka (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC))

ok. I got you. thank you. although, you didn't explain what would be considered a notable person.

I'm not related to the person. I just think he is notable for what he does - salvages WWII airplanes and brings them back to US.

one more question, please: do you think I could post the links to the newspapers' articles and to CBS3 news on the Wikinews?

thanks again!

Lanochka —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanochka (talk • contribs) 03:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(Lanochka (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC))

He sure sounds interesting, but I'm not sure he meets the notability standards for people. That's the same standard used for lists of people from places. I could maybe see the "aircraft historian" angle. Are there cites for him other than in connection with the Swamp Ghost find? Lots of people that are locally-famous get featured in local-news human-interest stories, not many are notable outside that relatively small circle. For people that are well-cited but only really in connection with a single event or part of a larger/major project, they certainly deserve mention in the article about that larger topic. We actually do have an article specifically about the Swamp Ghost, and some mention of its (re)discoverer, key people in the recovery/salvage, etc. are certainly worth including in there. Nice to know details about them.

My concern about the conflict-of-interest was based on the Hagen Construction, Inc. article you had created, which was full of "we" and "our" words describing the company...made it seem like you were closely associated with the company or acting on behalf of it. DMacks (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

True, that is how decaffeination occurs in GCE, but note that GCE is the only method described which uses that specific technique, and if you'll note, GCE is only in operation in one facility in the world, Vancouver. The rest of the techniques describe dissolving and extracting the caffeine while the rest of the components in the beans remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mid137 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Both the indirect method and the triglyceride processs also use that same approach. I have no idea what the most common method actually is (but "swiss water" is heavily advertised on many labels I see). Probably best for the lead paragraph to state both. DMacks (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the supercritical carbon dioxide method is the prevailing method now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mid137 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

How about this wording:

They are then rinsed with a solvent that extracts the caffeine while leaving the other essential chemicals in the coffee beans.

That leaves out the detail of how that works, since those details are specific to certain methods (whether the solvent is naturally better for caffeine or whether it already contains all the other extractives) and are covered in each later specific section. DMacks (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mid137 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

why did u remove all what I did?!

I am from there and I know exactly what is going on!--188.225.180.251 (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said, your changes removed cited information, broke images, broke links to other articles, and generally created more biased articles. You may claim to know "the truth" but your changes created much worse articles than when you started. Sometimes being "too close to the situation" makes it hard to keep the perspective needed to write a dispassionate article that is based solely on verifiable information. DMacks (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for dropping that note at User:Gorming's talk page. Had I been the one to do it, I assuredly would have breached WP:CIVIL, especially after he vandalized my user page for the second time. Thanks for saving my sanity. oknazevad (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

:) Happy and slightly-saner editing! DMacks (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I seem to have the habit of simply changing the sub-level-domain en. to de.
How did you notice so quick, are such things recognized automatically?

--DrGranit (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It was automatically tagged as "possible autobiography or conflict of interest" (comparison of page-name and user-name of editor that created it). That is usually this type of mistake or someone promoting their own band/company/etc. DMacks (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiki has no neutrality because wiki is in favior of Atheism, One reason for this is the page "The Genesis Creation Myth" page, When you call somthing a "myth" you assume its not true. And i want for the sake of neutrality that you remove the word "myth" From the Genesis Creation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BellaKazza (talk • contribs) 17:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As was mentioned numerous times on the talk-page, the word "myth" doesn't actually mean quite what you think. You are relying on your belief or what you were told rather than actually trying to understand the scholarly facts and look at lots of sources of scholarly research. You can ignore scholars all you like, but it just makes you look unwilling to learn and grow your mind. Now there may be better words, but that's not my issue. Wikipedia does have neutrality because it does not take on faith anything or have preconceived and not-allowed-to-be-changed fundamental understandings. Face it, the whole world does not have the same beliefs you do, and many others are just as 100% sure they are right and you are wrong, just as you feel about them--some of their books are even older than yours. I fear wikipedia is not a good place for you to be contributing right now, as you seem unwilling or unable to even consider any reference or piece of evidence outside of a single book. And worse, only one possible interpretation of that book. Wikipedia is just one of many places to work on the Internet...there are others that are more tuned to your apparently narrowly-constructed world-view. You're welcome to your opinions, but you are wasting your time if you think you will accomplish God's mission by trying to destroy real-world learning on the site here. DMacks (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up the page move. Sorry for making the extra work, you ended up having to delete more pages than you would have if it had been an A7 case! -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh...no worries:) At least this way we'll maybe get a viable article and/or long-term new editor out of it. Happy editing... DMacks (talk) 07:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

settlement (colony) is not a city!!!

u can not compare a colonies built on a stolen and confiscated land to to real city being built illegally on a land that it legally owns!

colonies r considered illegal by the international law, UN, US, EU, Russia and the rest of the world!

Yes Rawabi is the first planned Palestinian city, but it is also the first planned city in the West Bank, Palestine!--188.225.180.251 (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, you are required to obey the sources not your analysis and synthesis of them. DMacks (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

i am obeying the truth, not my own analysis nor the Zionist terrorist satanic propaganda who wants to wipe Palestine off the map!!!--188.225.180.251 (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You're about to be blocked for repeatedly removing cited info and changing facts that you don't like to conform to your WP:TRUTH. DMacks (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this [2] was some sort of error. I never got an edit conflict. It just saved over you. Dragons flight (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I figured something like that...seems to happen especially on RD. Happy editing! DMacks (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

As mentioned previously at Jake's page I would like to have this article looked over. I'll admit it's not perfect, but it's a lot better than it was. I've also seen much worse over at this list, taking Banner of Truth Trust as an example.

Thanks. Gaming4JC (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Friendly Bump. I think I was forgotten Gaming4JC (talk) 03:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi DMacks. You have previously been involved in the discussion about the spelling of the name of this article. The user who feels so passionately about the issue has now proposed renaming the article again. The discussion is at Talk:Aluminium borohydride#Requested move. Favonian (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A mod called Michaeldsuarez (who in my opinion is corrupt) had been vandalizing my talk page for weeks right here on Wikipedia, and all because he knows me from another site. And then he started opening up additional debate threads after they were locked, claiming I was trying to get him and a friend of his banned, which is of course a ton of bull****.

His most recent trolling attempt was listing a bunch of private IP numbers and accounts that I had only used once or twice here on Wikipedia, because ED has been dry and it's a popular tactic he employs to attract a response. I.E. Battle baiting.

The user is a member of Encyclopedia Dramatica, to which he has been abusive to me for over 2 years now by reverting my edits to a page that has no business being there.

P.S. Reply on my talk page, but do not allow other users to respond. He also publicly posted my real IP address without my consent HERE.

I'll be sending a private complaint to Wikipedia through e-mail. This is where he posted my accounts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Grace_Saunders

45g (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

^^ There is a wiki srs bsns thing open on this. Wikiquette or something, I do not know Wikipedia but I am sure you can see what it is pretty clearly. Snaisybelle (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#45g.2C_Michaeldsuarez.2C_and_Snaisybelle for more information. 45g keeps trying to get me banned from Wikipedia. In addition, I joined ED in the October of 2009, so I'm not sure where he developed this "2 years" idea from. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• There has been no REAL Wikipedia contributions or edits by these two in ages. ONLY random harassment of me (and others).45g (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I've made plenty of "real" edits. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm ignoring this canvasing and attempt to drag me into a dispute I know nothing about. My talk-page is not WP:AN/I or WP:SPI. DMacks (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Obviously not your fault:) DMacks (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Why was the page called April Cover deleted in 2008? Was this page about the Birmingham-based Pop/Rock Band? ClintCollins920 (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was what it was about. It was tagged {{db-band}}. The content at that time didn't seem to make a claim of notability for the group, and was written in a promotional tone rather than as an encyclopedia entry. DMacks (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

How is this image replaceable by free content? Gnevin (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this specific person's specific injury discussed in detailed prose in the article (now at Eye Contact in Rugby union), merely as a decoration/lede image of the topic of the article. Therefore, someone else with an eye injury would work just as well, and I can't imagine there isn't a free one somewhere. There is a list of injuries, and this person may be in the list (I didn't look because it wouldn't affect my judgement here) but I took it in the same sense as how album-covers are banned in discography lists except in articles specifically discussing the particular album in detail. DMacks (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

An eye injury! This isn't about any auld eye injury . This is explicitly about eye contact in Rugby union known as gouging and is a specific issue and type of injury. This was also an extreme case. This image illustrates the damage that eye gouging can cause and is not easily replaceable. Also this persons injury will be discussed in the article by the end of the day. I'm not sure your album covers analogy is apt as the album covers have a main article , like how logos are allow on the sports teams page and any other usage is not considered fair use Gnevin (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If this injury is itself notable (or the player is and the injury is particularly important in relation to him), it could have an article with the image, just like if an album is notable, an image of the album goes in that article. Again, when there's actual content about this actual thing, a non-free image of the thing is certainly viable. Let me know when there's content, and I'll revive the image for it and give you a chance to write a fair-use rationale for its inclusion there. DMacks (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure notability has nothing to do with fair use. The subject of Eye contact in Rugby union is notable and this is need to demonstrate the injury Gnevin (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, I can't imagine that someone doesn't have a free image of this topic. It's the replaceable part of WP fair-use policy that is at issue if the subject is rugby eye injuries. If the subject is this injury, then obviously only an image of this injury would suffice, and it would likely not be easy/possible to find a free one. DMacks (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

So you proclaim this image is easily replaced, delete the image and then its left to the rest of us to attempt to find a free image of this which most likely doesn't exist. This image isn't easily replaceable, I look before I uploaded a FU image Gnevin (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct. I am not even slightly convinced that there isn't a free image of a rugby eye injury possible (not "you can't find it" but "it's reasonably likely that one could exist"). And it is indeed up to the uploader to prove that a non-free image is allowed. Feel free to file WP:DRV. DMacks (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking AVeryBoredGuy. Now we have "AVeryBoredDude". Could you please? Thanks again in advance! - SummerPhD (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That one was indef-blocked a while ago. I added a note to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AVeryBoredGuy to keep track of it. DMacks (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry for the question--under certain circumstances a web page may be cited as a reference. I am the originator of the text on the website and am repeating it here. What exactly do I need to do to add this given this situation? Yerdua22 (talk) 08:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Three problems:

1. If you want the website content to be reusable, you might want to clearly state that on the website (for example, that it is GFDL or CC licensed). Otherwise, you'll need to email WP:OTRS verifying that it's yours and you allow Wikipedia to reuse it (which includes the right of re-reuse by other readers and editors here).
2. The article did not provide any claims that the event is notable. Wikipedia isn't for "everything and anything", but only for things that have already become notable in the eyes of independent sources.
3. The article was written completely in the tone of an advertisement ("come to this", etc.) rather than an encyclopedia article.

DMacks (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay-thank you. I'll make the changes and try again:^) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yerdua22 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you have worked on it several times so I thought I should be honest and tell you. Best wishes, Rich (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please let me finish. I'll make it less advertisement like. I'm trying to make it a full good page, instead of the stub —Preceding unsigned comment added by Normanbeats (talk • contribs) 04:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll check back in a few hours. If it even looks like advertising or if the content has evidence of cut'n'paste from other websites, I'm reverting it per policy. DMacks (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)