User talk:DMacks/Archive 8

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.

Hi, could you restore the protection on Precognition please? Anonymous disruption is still a problem. Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi DMacks. I am wondering if you did not find the citations and facts satisfactory for the Rover Morning Glory's show regarding Steven Segal and Sex Trafficking. I presented them according to police reports and statements of events. I could use your advice. Perhaps it should be placed in his "controversies" section? Rover's behavior toward this subject is becoming a big deal, as media's laissez-faire habit towards portrayals of sex trafficking is a factor towards its perpetuity. Should I cite more statements by organizations regarding the growing controversy, or more citations of the facts of the statements of the show? Thank you so much for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TechScholarIC (talk • contribs) 06:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Two inter-related WP:OR issues: "Rover's behavior toward this subject is becoming a big deal," That speaks to the relative importance of this item in this article--need support for it becoming a big deal. "[A]s media's laissez-faire habit towards portrayals of sex trafficking is a factor towards its perpetuity." That would support the "big deal" if cites tie this specific case to it (rather than Wikipedia editors/readers just making the connection themselves). Cites that attest to the claim that there is a serious and growing controversy would be great--the facts are probably not nearly as important (any WP:RS that analyzes the relevance/impact/etc in depth would surely have the key details of the events). Our article just needs a summary of the event in question, not a blow-by-blow account. On the other hand, any specific statements about facts must be exactly supported by the given cite...that's what usually leads to rapid deletion of added statements. DMacks (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

the changes i made to Dustin Byfoglien pages are all true, if you have ever watched him play hockey before, you would know this. Im just writing so that the whole truth can be known, not just ESPN version, that paints this guy as a hockey saint, which he is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkeymeat2468 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The "whole truth" cannot include smears, insults, or other personal observations/commentary unsupported by citations from reliable sources. WP:BLP is policy. DMacks (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

How do i get citations if the media wont say anything bad about a player, ever though real can see hes not a good player? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkeymeat2468 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess you're stuck then. If no commentators think he's bad, then maybe he's not as bad as you think. Unfortunately, wikipedia isn't for publishing of original analysis even if it's the truth. DMacks (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

When you get a free chance could you take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Revdelete.2C_redux? Thanks --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just wondering how you were able to delete my article. I thought I was practicing on my user draft space and did not intend to upload it to the actual web. If I was accidentally uploading the article to Wikipedia can you tell me how to practice on my own user space before uploading it?

Thanks Outtjp7 (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)outtjp7

Alright, I undeleted it and put a note about what is happening. There's been a very common pattern lately where a new user joins wikipedia for the apparent sole purpose of using his userpage for spamming his company/band/etc. I'll check back in a day or so to see how it's going. DMacks (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

To: DMacks From: Howard Z

Thanks for catching that error with a methyl in place of an acetyl.

I have that fixed now. I have a problem everytime a drawing needs replacement. The upload in Commons doesn't seem to have a way to remove files with errors. And thus the names are retained and I have a problem devising a good new filename for the replacement.

I'll spend some time looking at your other comments. At first glance I hadn't digested them. But I have some stuff to do pretty soon (e.g. a thick Ph.D. thesis to read before I need to serve on that committee).

You must be an organic chemist. But I haven't encountered your stuff yet.

I appreciate your comment about having an organic chemist doing some editing. I had received a negative comment suggesting that I might use my energies in just fixing up other articles. I had no way of telling who suggested that and tried to reply that my interest was in seeing some important items put into Wikipedia and selecting articles where I had information unlikely to be accessed by others. I don't know if that explanation got back to the writer or if it would have satisfied him.

I also get messages suggesting that I put in the four tildes. But it also was suggested that it was equally good to put in the "signature" (i.e. with 2-s and 4 tildes tildes). I'll do both here although it is redundant.

Best wishes and thanks again,

Howard Z

Howard E. Zimmerman 18:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

--Howard E. Zimmerman 18:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman (talk • contribs)

To: DMacks From: Howard Z

DMacks, I've separated the equilibrium drawing from the kinetic one. That makes it more clear what the less hindered and more hindered items refer to. But that introduced more white-space. The problem in getting the labels closer is the structure. Yes, I could make the p-orbital larger. But I seem to be accumulating unused drawings with filenames on Wikipedia (a problem).

It is unfortunate that one cannot delete unused drawing files from Commons. Then one could just use the same names for uploading.

After things quiet down a bit, I can look over the article and see what might be done.

Since you seem to like Organic stuff, you might want to take a look at my other recent article on "Möbius-Hückel Concept". That is one other topic I wanted to see in Wikipedia.

Quite a bit earlier I wrote an article on the Birch Reduction, again a topic which I wanted to be understood.

Best wishes,

Howard Z

Howard E. Zimmerman 20:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC) --Howard E. Zimmerman 20:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman (talk • contribs)

To: DMacks From: Howard Z

DMacks,

I've redone Figure 1 with your suggestions in mind.

But I had to use .gif format. Png format ends up being much larger for each given ChemDraw .cdx file so it isn't possible to be certain that in Wikipedia the file will fit or be a size as the .gif ones there.

But do look at the figure and see if it looks better.

Best,

Howard E. Zimmerman 02:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman (talk • contribs)

It's been over a week since that page has been fully protected. Do you think it would be safe to drop it down to semi-protection now? Oh, how I wish we had flagged/configurable protection NW (Talk) 22:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Same thing with Arpan Sharma, except it's been several months on that one. NW (Talk) 22:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Both knocked down to semi. DMacks (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are you obsessed with trannys/chicks with dicks? Seems wierd to me, but whatever dude! I guess that is what you are into —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianbius (talk • contribs) 06:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. I was doing a little cleaning from the edit history and screwed up. Thanks very much for cleaning up after me. — Satori Son 20:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries! Happy editing, DMacks (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

...but for some reason your edit deleted mine. Did the Wikimedia engine not flag the edit conflict to you properly? Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I remember that because it was weird...I actually did get the ec flag but there were no differences in the side-by-side panes except my own comment. So I dutifully copied my comment to the end of the "upper box/actual submission" and saved. Obviously no harm meant, thanks for catching&fixing! DMacks (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there DMacks, you recently prodded the article Squijy (which you beat me to!), but I think you made a mistake. In the reason, you wrote "unreferenced dictdef--WP:NLT?" WP:NLT redirects to Wikipedia:No legal threats, but there isn't a mention of anything related to law in the article. Perhaps you meant to link WP:NEO? Regards. — ξ^xplicit 07:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

D'oh...corrected to WP:NFT. That's what I get for reading too many admin-notices:/ Thanks for catching it! DMacks (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Bah, I was close enough. No problem at all. — ξ^xplicit 07:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to reply on my talk page in a couple of minutes. htom (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to check if there is a talk page... You deleted Brian Young (Radio Disc Jockey) but missed the talk page. I've deleted it for you. Cheers, Stephen! ^Coming... 22:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks DMacks (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the direct source of File:Hyderabad Metro .jpg! Hekerui (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I had done this for File:Sreedharan.jpg, looked at the other uploaded images and they were all about the Hyderabad railroad - either having the logo or being "own work" when it's a satellite image. Of course it's more convenient and erases ambiguity to have a url. Best Hekerui (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi I just created a University of Windsor page in Hindi, and then found it to be deleted. The page just exists in English, and does not exist in Hindi. Can I create the page in Hindi?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alam1s (talk • contribs) 19:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No. This here is en.wikipedia.org, the English Wikipedia site, for articles written in the English language. The topic of the article does not have to be related to English--it's just the language in which the article is written. I think http://hi.wikipedia.org is the Hindi-language Wikipedia site, where articles written in that language are appropriate. Articles that exist on other Wikipedias are linked to each other by interwiki links (see Help:Interlanguage links for more information), so readers can jump among the different languages' articles on the same topic. DMacks (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that, though you are one of the more recent contributors to the list, the nom in the following deletion effort failed to notify you of the deletion discussion. Don't feel singled out -- he seems not to have provided the courtesy to anyone. So I'm picking up the slack for him. Discussion is ongoing here. (Go Quakers). --Epeefleche (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. DMacks (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Pleasure. Best. BTW, there is some discussion on that talk page that may interest you. 1) from two editors who would like to delete unreferenced entries, rather than tag them. And 2) I raised some additional criteria to consider for inclusion on the lists, such as membershiop in two of the indicated Halls of Fame. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

hi Dmacks,

Hope you doing good.

I was rewriting the Collabera article by placing the same article and overwriting it. Please don't delete let me complete it first and then you can talk with me if you have any issue.

Waiting for your response

Thanks Amit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tituamitgupta123 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good thing to be doing in your user-space (personal sandbox). For example, work on a draft according to WP:UP#SUB. Given the sad history of that article, it's best not to put it in the mainspace until it is actually a viable article page. See WP:USERSPACE. DMacks (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

See: [1]. That was terribly rude. As a wiki veteran you should know better. 80.225.158.232 (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Per edit-summaries, WP:DUCK of User:Starchie1, who was at level2 warning, so level3 follows. Or maybe someone else who had read article history, so...still WP:DUCK. DMacks (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the joke. Um is there something I am missing? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

He asked me to block him to experiment with visibility of certain system messages by blocked users and to "use any nasty block summary on me at your will". DMacks (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it was deliberate admin abuse cooked up on IRC. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The real admin abuse is (as I said in the block) that teh sexy is being squandered. DMacks (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I was amused, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Shocking! ;-) Oh well at least it makes sense now. You must admit it was an unusual edit summary. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Happy editing! DMacks (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

DMAcks I am pleading you with the question on why did you delete my article on my website Hacker! Say what? twice. WHat did I do to you. Like cmon man! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dxevilboy (talk • contribs) 08:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As we keep telling you, it badly failed our minimal criteria for an article. There are links to our policies and content guidelines in the deletion message and posted numerous times on your talk-page. DMacks (talk) 08:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if I am using the wrong method to contest the deletion of the above page. I was not advertising the company i was provide information, much like we have with our partner companies such as Servus credit union and competitor companies such as Laurentian bank and others. please let me know if that adding a page to my username was incorect in creating the company profile and direct me to the corect help files to be able to do this correctly , again thank you for your attention to thisJkharshoum (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC) june 28,2010.

That's not how Wikipedia works...it's an encyclopedia, not a corporate directory or free webhost. If an entity meets the standards of notability (or these more directly relevant to companies and other organizations), someone can write an article about it. Again, things need to be written as an encyclopedia article, not full of PR speak and other promotional terminology (see WP:TONE). User-pages are for a little information about you but most definitely not for advertising or posting extensively about non-wikipedia issues. People closely affiliated sometimes have especially hard time writing clearly and objectively about their groups. WP:Your first article might be a good place to read about how to write an article. DMacks (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I was going to request semi-protection but it looks like in the short term, that won't be necessary. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

DMacks,

I was acting in good faith. Enzymes are not only proteins. For example, here is the dictionary definition:

"a substance produced by a living organism that acts as a catalyst to bring about a specific biochemical reaction. Most enzymes are proteins with large complex molecules whose action depends on their particular molecular shape. Some enzymes control reactions within cells and some, such as the enzymes involved in digestion, outside them."

For example, peptidyl transferase is an enzyme. It is an RNA. If it has an Enzyme Commission number, under what authority/expertise are you claiming that it is not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.67.164.89 (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to bring this up on the article talk page, so the editors who previously had worked on this wording can help. DMacks (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw that you temporarily banned User talk:65.51.122.131 for disruptive edits. Based on this edit (which was an obsessive edit the above IP made repeatedly such as here), it appears this same person has now moved to User talk:69.249.252.199. Strikehold (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the time-lag and network difference, and ony single-edit by the new IP, not sure it's not just some copycat rather than same person. Please keep an eye on the article and revert/warn/file block/protection request if it becomes ongoing problem. DMacks (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll do that. Thanks for looking into things. Strikehold (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:65.51.122.131 is back at it here. Thanks. Strikehold (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Good warning to him. I've watchlisted a few of his favorite pages and will check back over next few hr to see if need more action. DMacks (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And again. I reverted the edit. Strikehold (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And now again from a different IP. Would you consider protecting this page? Strikehold (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(just returning from vacation...) protected a month. DMacks (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Strikehold (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

you say the following about yourself " What can I say? I'm a nerd in multiple areas of science, liking both the tinkering and the teaching-others-to-tinker aspects. I have eclectic interests in other areas as well. As an academic, I can be a bit pedantic when it comes to presentation style and usefulness/accessibility of factual content." If you know about yourself than let others alone and let them free to their own way and things start to write, it's a free encyclopedia and not a dictatorship

I do not see where you get the nerve to take away my article, a biography which I just got started. It is a free encyclopedia everybody can write. You have nothing better to do than other people their effort to inform others removed. Do you understand what Free means? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoniqueChrstRoest (talk • contribs) 21:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, wikipedia is most certainly not a free website where anyone can write anything. Rather there are very clear notability standards for topics that merit having an article written. Have a look at WP:BIO and the other links posted on your talk-page. DMacks (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If you know about yourself what you are, than let others alone and let them free to their own way of writing, and things start to write, it's a free encyclopedia and not a dictatorship Look at what is written about Dadaism and perhaps your way of thinking get more free, what the aim is of a free encyclopedia I do not see where you get the nerve to take away my article, a biography which I just got started. It is a free encyclopedia everybody can write. You have nothing better to do than other people their effort to inform others removed. Do you understand what Free means? If you think you are right, than you have to deleted all articles of artists, professors, researchers, composers, poets, historical figures and free thinkers let me be and let others be. If you have the need to delete, delete your own work --MoniqueChrstRoest (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry but my "original research" is the best information available,

And you taking down my edits and warnings to people could very well cause SOMEONES DEATH or a life of Grand Mal Seizures from smoking something they thought was harmless.

How would you feel if someone died from this substance, from the very problem im doing my best to accurately describe? Would you feel like someone who proactively and productively moderates wikipedia for accurate information for the greater good? Or would you feel like you just KILLED SOMEONE?

Im sorry, This substance is very rare and people in the know about it are very reluctant to explain anything about it because its VERY ILLEGAL,

Your consistent editing of the entry on "budder" will very likely result in someone being uninformed and eventually dying or becoming an epileptic for the rest of their life, When my scientifically accurate "original research" could have helped them make a much more informed decision.

Or maybe you are an avid user of Budder who hasnt experienced these side effects yet and maybe one day you will..... then we will see just how original my research is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.179.36 (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOR is pretty clear. If this info is such a critical health issue, it will surely have been written in some other reliable publication that can be cited. I recommend you go find such a source...that's a good use of your time, instead of working towards getting your edit privilege revoked here. DMacks (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

Previously you performed a dummy edit at SEPTA to express concurrance with my removal of a "Criticism" section added by User:Oanabay04. As we both said at the time, the sourcing was horribly dated and the text was full of conjecture and WP:WEASEL.

Well, I think I need your help as an admin at SEPTA Regional Rail. The same user, now only using an IP, added a similar section using the same outdated sources. When previously I removed it on the same grounds, he reverted with an edit summary stating "nothing has changed", without offerig any proof that it hasn't. It has become a case of WP:TE in my view, and he has in fact reverted the removal three times today alone. I cannot do any more, as I would run afoul of 3RR, but I feel it needs to be addressed.

His persistant use of IP edits here may be a simple case of him just forgotten to log in, but I'm not sure. I would also not that he actually reverted your dummy edit at the main SEPTA article, probably thinking it would restore the deleted section, but has done nothing more since.

oknazevad (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's make it a public discussion at the talk-page for one of those two articles, will then be easy to get others to add input and either find sources or concur that there's a sourcing problem. And if WP:TE continues, will be easier to take administrative action. Pick a place to start it and let me know... DMacks (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, someone else already removed it, but if it returns again, I'll bring it up at the talk page for the Regional Rail article.oknazevad (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Understandably, everybody makes mistakes. I noticed when you typed in {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} into someone's talk page, you typed it as {{subst:uw0-vandalism1}}. Remember to look at what the page says after you click save. Thanks. mechamind90 18:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching it! Still getting finger-tied on a new style of keyboard:( DMacks (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Could you please head over to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Hidden posts and clarify your comment there? HOOTmag is repeatedly (as in, several dozen times) referencing you as agreeing with him and I'm think he is misinterpreting you. --Tango (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

G'damn it so much. Can't believe we have to spend so much time on this kind of crap! DMacks (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You made an edit to "The Room" deleting a section. Your reason for it's deletion was for vandalism. However, that was not vandalism for what was stated was true. The NC did review the movie and it was taken down. The NC then made a satire video, criticizing John from theroommovie.com for threatening to sue for copyright. Here is the link of the video in which NC satirizes him.

I will restore what was deleted. Please do not delete it nor charge me for vandalize.This happen and has important to the film The Room. By deleting it, you rob people of knowledge, as well as undermined the entire point of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSLoner (talk • contribs) 04:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it was locked with the text in-place.

In 2010, the Nostalgia Critic reviewed the film. He placed it firmly in the "so-bad-it's-good" genre and ultimately recommended his audience to view it. The film was quickly removed due to copyright infringement from Wiseau Studios. This also confirms the missing of Obscurus Lupa's (a contributor to ThatGuyWithTheGlasses.com) review of The Room that was also taken down. In response, Doug Walker made a sketch satirizing Wiseau bringing the review down, stating that as a review it is protected under fair use. This sketch also lampooned John, a staff member of the official website for the film, who apparently was the first to bring the complaint.

I agree that vandalism was likely after the review came out, but keeping it locked with the text in place seems to be stifling consensus. There has not yet been much discussion on whether it should be included or not. However without citation there does not seem to be any reason to consider it notable. Reviews by popular YouTube users (and on personal websites) such as Nostalgia Critic and Angry Video Game Nerd have been discussed already, and unless they receive some relevant external coverage as evidenced by citation, they have been deemed non-notable.

I'd like to get another administrator's opinion on this, but thought it best to ask you first. Thanks 71.101.95.236 (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The article was locked immediately when there was evidence of an off-wiki-organized effort to deface the page. Sometimes it gets locked with WP:The Wrong Version. Autoconfirmed editors are welcome to fix the content--anons and new editors are not at this time--that's the price we all pay for anons' vandalism. DMacks (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, could you as an adminstrator edit to remove it? The text in question was clearly added as a result of the "off-wiki-organized effort" and it remains non-notable. Until there has been time for a discussion and consensus, I suggest the relevant text should be removed. On a side note, you locked the Tommy Wiseau page for presumably the same reason with the following text in place:

Wiseau became a target for internet satirists after two reviews of The Room by the Nostalgia Critic and Obscurus Lupa were pulled down due to a claimed copyright infringement despite fair use as a review and parody.

The matter is under dispute (as evidenced by the fact that the claim was made in the first place) and while I think it probably was Fair Use, the personal opinions of myself and the other editors should not be reflected in the article per NPOV. Two citations are provided but they have no relevance to Fair Use, thus the italicized text is original research. Could you please remove it (the italicized part) as uncited? If you're unable to do so, maybe you could suggest a different administrator? Thanks again for your time.71.101.95.236 (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No. The article talk-page is the place to work out whether specific content should be kept vs removed (or changed wording) or whether certain sources are appropriate or not. Administrators are specifically not allowed to use their special tools to choose a winner in an edit-war unless there is very clear abuse or policy violations. DMacks (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disagree here, but this isn't a case of taking sides in an edit war but application of policy. Consensus does need to be reached on the talk page, I couldn't agree more and am adding a note on the talk page. However as the article stands now in its locked state, the biographical page of Tommy Wiseau is asserting one side of a yet-unresolved Fair Use dispute, which is a clear violation of NPOV. Though I happen to personally feel that what the article states is true, my point of view is as irrelevant as any other individual editor's. Until either the dispute is dismissed or a legal ruling is made public that can be cited, the article should not assert an opinion per Wikipedia policy. A consensus can hopefully be reached on whether or not the review in question was a violation of Fair Use, with some sort of verification, but until that time we have a clear violation of policy locked in place on a biographical article of a living person, and its removal is necessary pending consensus. Please understand this is not trying to go over your head in any way, but if you feel that you have some conflict of interest in this matter, I respectfully suggest another administrator's opinion is needed. Thanks. 71.101.95.236 (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to make your case on the article talk-page, where other editors and admins can assist you. I am not willing to make this sort of change based on discussions on my talk-page. DMacks (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt feedback. You've made it clear that you don't wish to intervene further so I'll seek assistance elsewhere. 71.101.95.236 (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. Well thank you for clearing that up in non-childish manner unlike Snappy's response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.111.194 (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. DMacks (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I had also checked both papers and could find no mention of enolase. I have always assumed that the effect was due to the greater resistance of the fluoroapatite to bacteria.--Smokefoot (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, just found a bunch of support for that in the water-fluoridation article, so I nuked the statement. DMacks (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dmacks, Why? Are you out to kill new forms of art? I don't understand why you've killed my link. Would you please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brewmaster007 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You describe it as essentially something you made up rather than something others have written about in independent sources. WP is for things that are already notable, not for publicizing or collecting/writing examples of your own ideas. DMacks (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dmack,

I saw that you deleted my entry. I understand why you may have done this. Allow me to assure you what I posted is not "blatant misuse of the website." What I posted is a new form of art. We are students of the arts and can prove so if you need. I feel you've acted without precedence (and I understand why given the nature of this website) but I implore you to reconsider.

Fligban is not a joke. I (we) view this as art form as legitimate as any other that exists on this website an beyond. I’m happy to discuss this offline if need be, but in the meantime, please allow us to express ourselves.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brewmaster007 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a performance/art/personal-expression venue. It's an encyclopedia. In order for an artile to survive, it must have existing notability (which is different from "popularity" or "I like this thing"). Lots of niche-topics just aren't viable unfortunately. If and when your thing is written-about in other sources, then an article would be possible. DMacks (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, DMacks. You have new messages at Talk:Hybrid electric vehicles in the United States.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariordo (talk • contribs) 00:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Just passing by the /wiki/Enzyme page and noticed it might need an update.

Go to Youtube and type in How proteins build cells ^[1].

..the Chaperonin / folding models in most of those videos is incorrect, however.

Here's a link to a for research on that -

Research reveals insight into the hidden world of protein folding^[2] - 2008

REFERENCES
[ 1 ] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=983lhh20rGY&feature=related - How proteins build cells
[ 2 ] - http://news.stanford.edu/news/2008/june11/chaperon-061108.html - Judith Friedman, Stanford Univ. 2008

Ahshabazz (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What update does Enzyme need? The mechanisms by which proteins are folded into their ultimate shapes isn't really an "enzyme" topic...we have a whole Protein folding page for it. So "whatever you are thinking" might be better there instead? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone--which means you--can edit. Or else propose some new/improved actual wording for the articles so others can help you get it done. DMacks (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi DMacks:

Thanks for fixing the "Maccabees" page for me. I am going to make an effort to be more wiki-editor savvy.

I just read your user page, you and I will get along great -- I'm the same academic type.

Yo YoMenashe (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced all of them w/ converts, so if you want to consign this to oblivion, be my guest. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Thank you very much for rushing to the rescue of this "Not so longer obscure article" Cedar Lake Mlpearc powwow 15:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to thank you very much. What a wonderful job. I feel so bad, after yelling "HELP". This was my last edit to Cedar Lake[2]. Four hrs. after that edit I was in the hospital getting prepared for an emergency appendectomy. I was just released from the hospital yesterday afternoon. All went well and I am fine. But I still have praise for you and everyone that participated in the AfD. My wife set up my laptop when I got settled in and my browser opens to the last page it was on when shut down. It was Cedar Lake. After I signed in I had a message waiting for me at my talk page, so I went there first, when I came back to cedar lake the first thing I noticed it wasn't flagged for deletion :). What a wonderful "Editors to the Rescue" collaboration. Again Thank You Very Much. Mlpearc powwow 15:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't take credit (didn't do anything other than say "yup, looks good"), but glad it got resolved. Good luck with your continued healing! DMacks (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

He attacked me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratzqu (talk • contribs) 16:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Attacking back is not going to help Wikipedia. Don't make yourself look bad while trying to solve your problems. DMacks (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, my "attack" was to post an unconstructive editing note when Ratzqu posted blatantly false information at FIFA World Rankings, a page he proceeded to editwar on extensively that day. Thanks to DM for reverting the subsequent attack on my talk page. Kevin McE (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

<facetious>How dare you!</facetious> Don't worry, he'll likely be blocked very soon. DMacks (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi what do you think about: Eichberg FC Med-Quest Procysive Shitting Glitter The Line of Best Fit which have been hanging around CSD for a while? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Killed the first three. I don't know much about the music world to be able to judge the last two. They sound like they claim to make claims of notability but don't actually do so but they have refs that mention them. DMacks (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I was unsure myself so I left them for some one else. I have an idea that is something hangs around CSD for more than 2 days it probably should go to AFD, because a lot of admins would have looked at it and done nothing! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Dmacks;

You deleted an article I authored on Med-Quest citing (CSD A7). After researching other similar "Permitted" articles for similar companies I am unclear abouth your criteria for this determination. Other less relevant, less significant articles are permitted, e.g. Phoenix Software International. Yet the Med-Quest article which cites USPTO application teaching very significant technology improvments in the Electronic Data Capture space are deemed irrelevant. The teaching of technology is a very relevant use of the Wikipedia Encyclopedia. Please reconsider this deletion or help me re-write the Med-Quest article in a "relevant" way.

Remie —Preceding unsigned comment added by RemieSmith (talk • contribs) 14:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Patents are a form of self-publication, which is not a reliable source, and the patent office only checks that the submission is new (no other judgement about it), so that's two reasons why a patent does not support notability. There was no specific claim of notability (which as the link notes is different from "significance" or "educational relevance"), so the article did not meet the minimum standards. WP is not simply a directory of companies. I tagged Phoenix Software International for deletion per the same standard--the volunteers who edit here probably just hadn't noticed that one--thanks for finding it! WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS however doesn't mean your stuff can exist though.

The WP:CORP guidelines are pretty explicit about what sorts of things an article needs in order to satisfy the notability requirement (see especially the "Primary criteria" section of that article). I think you're going in the right direction with saying it has "very significant technology improvments"--as long as it's someone else writing commentary verifying that claim (detailed articles in software or medical-technology publications).

The WP:Your first article page has some good pointers about starting an article. DMacks (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

DAN: At the very least the Med-Quest article points to a useful detailed specification of the technology involved in Electronic Data Capture. It contains explicit designs and explanations of their workings. I would have found this information very useful when I first started in this industry. Also I call to your attention Phase Forward, in the Electronic Data Capture article. Given your critieria I believe any and all of the compamies articles are irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RemieSmith (talk • contribs) 14:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi DMacks. Would you prefer your orphaned image to be moved to Commons (see alternatives in Commons:Category:Dextromethorphan) or to be deleted? --Leyo 07:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons sounds good for File:Dxm3d-is6088I.png. It's a lower-resolution but better (IMO:) perspective of File:Dextromethorphan-3d-sticks.png, and it has more explicit source of the atomic coordinates. Which reminds me to ask creator of the other one where those coordinates came from. DMacks (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, delete. File:Dextromethorphan-from-xtal-3D-sticks-A.png has good perspective and data-source, mine is completely un-needed. DMacks (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(also File:Dextromethorphan-from-xtal-3D-balls-A.png is good). DMacks (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You would have to do it yourself as you are the one with the tools. :-) --Leyo 09:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh okay:) Done. DMacks (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know this kind of thing could make a difference in appearance, but it does look a little bit better.  :) ChemNerd (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help! It's a common issue when scaling any bit-mapped graphics format (png, jpeg, gif). Vector formats (svg) are infinitely and arbitrarily rescalable (but are not as well supported in some programs). DMacks (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. I thought that the removal of my CSD notification and the fact that the editor edited previous comments previously made me think that is was wrong-doing. I apologize for any inconvenience. (NOTE: You only had 2 ~, not 4)

Many Regards, Yousou (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Happy editing! DMacks (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Could you consider move protecting the page? There is a move war of sorts going on. Thanks. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone else beat me to it. DMacks (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Thanks anyway. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just saw now, that you are the compiler of the "requested move". There has been many more discussions afterwards, could you have a look into it again? In my point of view it would make sense to name it "Sri Sri Ravi Shankar". Also I was wondering about "Mahatma Gandhi"...Everybody knows him under that name and not under his real name. Same like "Mother Theresa". Would lov to hear some feedback. Thanks a lot. cheers. (Krishi108 (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC))

Hi i need my article which you deleted "Yemek Yiyen Filozoflar Problemi". I dindt know i have to write the article in Turkish Wiki. So please help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olcayertas (talk • contribs) 11:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi DMacks, I've made the changes you requested. Sorry I missed the temperature symbol from File:De-epoxidation.png. Most of the other stuff was because I was trying to be faithful to the original. I might have a look at the BKchem code to see if I can get subscripts working better in wikipedia. gringer (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Does this script help? --Leyo 14:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does, thanks. I'll send that in a bug report to the BKchem developers to see if there's some way to implement some of those changes in the program. gringer (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

feature request, just in case people are interested. gringer (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting it, about the topic hybridization, which some editing i have made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismathsadhir (talk • contribs) 03:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Message left at my talk page Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

2nd Message left at my talk page Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ayan didnt gross 80 crores. It grossed just 35 crores [3]. The 80 crores gross is a wild rumour. Surya does not enjoy the opening power of Rajini, Kamal, Ajith and Vijay. Ayan grossed 35 crores at the box office worldwide. It is the biggest grosser for Surya but not for the industry. Check the link which i have added in this talk. Just make the changes so that the data will be original. Dont prevent corrections by Locking the page. Provide editing privilage{{editprotected}} User:Geocraze (talk) 03:35, 14 august 2010 (UTC)

• Ayan (film) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I prevent edit wars by locking the page (WP:PROT). As in any edit war, one side won't be happy with how it happens to get locked (WP:WRONGVERSION)--I don't know anything about the topic or sources, so I couldn't be sure if there really was a verifiably correct vs vandalized way. I stilll don't know, and I'm definitely not willing to be your private agent in this...please place "editprotected" request on the talkpage so someone who understands this topic can help you. DMacks (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

User:DMacks has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as DMacks's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear DMacks! Peace, Rlevse 00:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This user continues to edit against consensus at Lady Gaga discography. Invitations to discuss at the article talk page went ignored, as you may have noticed. I don't think 3RR has been violated, but this editor has made it very clear that he will continue to edit war to get his way and is refusing to discuss the matter. I'm not sure what should be done at this point, what do you say? –Chase (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done 24-hour block. DMacks (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are online, the user is back again. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Indef'ed. DMacks (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello DMacks, I seem to have gotten a bit lost since we last spoke. Would you mind taking a look over the article again and see if it's worthy of inclusion? It's a lot better than it was, and it's loads better than most other publishing company stubs I've been seeing. Take Banner of Truth Trust for example. Thanks again. Gaming4JC (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Some comments on your edits to "Chemistry".

You deleted "The mole concept is useful to check chemical calculations for consistency, or to deduce relationships of different quantities by dimensional analysis. " and commented "every 'units' term in every context is useful in exactly this way, nothing special". Technically, the mole is a unit like any other, but for other units, nobody mistakenly writes something like 1 g = 5, or would substitute a number for a unit. When the SI system was set up, there was a choice whether to have amount of substance be a dimensionless quantity, or to give it a base unit. It was decided to do the latter, even though the definition of mole talks about number of entities. This is counter-intuitive for the beginning student, but very useful for the chemist. For instance, it is useful that k and R have different dimensions, because k refers to single molecules and R refers to bulk substance. An encyclopedia is not a technical document, it is written for people who sometimes have misconceptions, and it benefits from stating the obvious (i.e. something you could deduce if you know mole is a unit and units have dimensions) by including somewhat redundant information.

You deleted "However, whereas dozen is a dimensionless number, mole is not." and commented "nonsense...your own example doesn't imply any other units differently than the 'dozen' case". I created my account on Wikipedia today, but I have 25 years of experience as a chemist. You are the first representative of the Wikipedia community I encounter, and I wish you were a bit more welcoming, otherwise you might lose the experts that ensure the high quality of the content. As for the content, it is subtle, but 1 dozen = 12, or dozen/12 = 1, so you can multiply anything by dozen/12 and preserve the content. 1 mol does not equal 6.022e23, and you cannot multiply with 6.022e23/mol and preserve the content. If you multiply the Boltzmann constant k with 6.022e23/mol, you get the universal gas constant R, for instance.

You commented '"amount of substance" is technical term involving moles and number of particles, so "mol/L most common" is either redundant or suggests that "micromoles/L" would be possible but that contradicts amount-of-substance definition.' about my statement "The most commonly used units are mol/L.". There is always a choice to add SI prefixes to an SI unit, but my point was that chemists like to used liters rather than cubic meters. In another revision, I added the SI base units of concentration to make the distinction clear between official base units and what is used in practice in the scientific community.

Theislikerice (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(got knocked off-line before I could respond last night:(

I responded to your major technical concerns on Talk:Chemistry. I apologize if I came across harshly, but what I saw was a new editor changing lots of long-standing content that approximately matches what my students (who I know read Wikipedia!) learn with a more technical content that does not match, and that did not have specific origins for this altered content. It's great when scientists edit, it's scary how many kids love to make random "plausible" changes to articles they know their friends read, and it's hard to know the difference. The final concern about units was a problem of consistency in usage. Your later re-wording (after my edits) resolved my concern "moles" (per its definitions) from something that just needs "some molar/amount-of-substance unit and some other volume". That is, the first attempt made it seem like "M" (moles/L) is the fundamental unit of molarity (so why bother saying it's also the most common) rather than allowing "any amount-of-substance unit per any volume unit". That is, now it sounds more like "most people use mol/L, but micromol/pint is okay if you like". My overriding concern (as I mentioned on the article-talk page) was getting technical without leaving an access point for novice readers. Glad someone is adding technical stuff--wikipedia needs writers who know it! DMacks (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Got to be, looks like the 'word' went out last night or some time this morning. I expect we'll get a lot before the end. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear DMacks, thanks for taking time to check out my edits.
Your corrections were all ok and some of them I would probably have done myself,eventually.
Your comments also made me think harder and will keep in mind for my future contributions.
My picking this particular article to begin contributing to WP was provoked by the box stating that butane has three conformers:one eclipsed one gauche and one anti... More to the point now:
The problem I have is that I have tried to fit into the existing structure mostly by adding stuff both to expand and to pull things in the direction I consider appropriate.For instance I edited in it but I would never have a section titled "conformer dependent reactions" for it conveys the message that different conformers can give different products (I mean ordinary equilibrating conformers,not atropisomers and the like).Such a notion is clearly wrong.My question would be:Is it acceptable to completely remake an article keeping bits and pieces as seen fit? One more thing:What exactly do you mean with the butynol example?Would you care to explain a bit more? Cleanthis (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You could do large-scale rewriting in a subpage of your userspace and then ask for others' thoughts about it. WP:CHEMISTRY is a good venue to attract attention of lots of interested and knowledgeable WP editors--might have some suggestions about how to integrate or reorganize the article. Here are my quick thoughts: Would "Effects on reactions" be a section-header for the content you are talking about? That avoids suggesting what the effects might be (your concern with "conformer dependent reactions"). But isn't it true that different equilibriating conformers do give different products? For example, the E1 elimination product from 2-bromobutane is mostly trans because that comes from the preferred conformer of the cationic intermediate. But there is still some cis formed, which comes from a less common conformer. As C2-C3 rotates to different conformers, different specific products result. There are preferred geometries for reactants and their transition states, but there are other ways as well. Would be great if the article addresses the specific relationship of the reaction-conformation to the product and requirements for various reactions. Just need to make it clear that these are preferences ("major product" is a common way of describing it in textbooks) and some cases non-preferred things can happen to a small extent.

Regarding the alkyne I mentioned, 1,4-dihydroxy-2-butyne HO–CH₂–C≡C–CH₂–OH is a linear carbon backbone. Now obviously alkyne bond rotation (whether or not one thinks it even happens) is irrelevant because the two alkyne (sp) carbons have 180° geometry. But C1 and C4 (the carbons that have hydroxyl attached) can each rotate about their σ bonds. And the whole molecule isn't linear, just the 4-carbon chain. The result is that you have two tetrahedral (sp³) atoms that can rotate with respect to each other. There's a variable dihdedral angle between the two C–O bonds analogous to that in 1,2-dihydroxyethane. As you might suspect, there is a preference for them to be approximately anti to each other--the alkyne just makes a much longer straight-line connection than a normal σ alkane attachment.

So we can says that alkynes don't rotate (or if they do, it doesn't affect molecular geometry) but we can't say that conformational isomerism is only relevant to sp³–sp³ bonds. We can't even say that "one sp³ compared to another sp³" or even "at least one sp³ σ bond" (i.e., allowing other intervening atoms and bonds). I guess the only real requirement at this level is "a σ bond" (regardless of any atomic hybridization): in addition to butynediol, the other easy-to-overlook case is C2–C3 rotation in 1,3-butadiene. DMacks (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis on the butyndiol conformations.Indeed they stem from the tetrahedral substitution pattern on the two alpha centres and have nothing to do with the triple bond itself.Similarly, the double bond system ends at the four coplanar alpha centers.The s-cis s-trans arrangements in butadiene exist because for each sp2-sp2 part the other part constitutes a non spherical non linear substituent.

On the relationship between product structure and reacting conformer populations.The point I was trying to make was simply that I consider it undesirable to assist somebody in establishing the notion that the most stable conformer gives rise to the predominant product in a mixture of products.It seems to be a reasonable assumption and one that can be verified to correctly predict the predominant product (predominance only, not product ratios) in a number of cases including the bimolecular dehydrohalogenation of 2-halobutane under discussion.Subsequently though, one will face the Curtin-Hammett principle asserting that this is not necessarily so and perhaps the Felkin-Anh model for the alpha chiral induction on carbonyl additions that considers conformer populations as essentially irrelevant.

To conclude ,I think the emphasis must be placed on the stability of the TS# not the stability of particular conformers.If such a formulation cannot be achieved then it should better be left out alltogether.Cleanthis (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello you gotta read this page now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Car_brokers_in_Australia. Third paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somesh.bmh (talk • contribs)

Responded there. Odd that a claimed very old contributor wouldn't know about how to use user-talk-pages (vs user-pages where above was posted) or about signing or about starting new sections in talk-pages. DMacks (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

[Cross-posting to admins with prior involvement.] Regarding User:YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels. I have to strenuously protest the block with the rationale of being a Karmaisking sockpuppet. I think I might have been the one to request the Karmaisking SPI, but even at that time I made pretty clear that the "Camels" user had no discernible behavioral likeness to Karmaisking: User_talk:MuZemike/Archive_5#User:YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels. The SPI clerk at the time seemed to have less-than-concrete evidence, though you may be privy to other details. If there are IP similarities, then it's possible they may be IRL friends or some such, but I've become extremely well-acquainted with Karmaisking and really do think User:YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels should be exonerated. If for no other reason than WP:ROPE, I ask for an unblock for the editor. BigK HeX (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

My interaction was Decline reason: "None of this resolves the concerns with your edit habits, which I concur are problematic, so none of this is a reason to unblock." I did not investigate or blindly accept others' claims regarding socking. Essentially, even if it weren't a sock, its behavior rose to blockable levels in its own right. DMacks (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for letting me know.

This is exactly the scenario I have been expecting and why I decided to leave the project. I recently clashed with a number of users, incidentally mostly from Estonia, some of which turned really nasty. One of them was User:Miacek. As I am not a shrink I am in no position to speculate about any mental health issues, but I do consider him a 'loose cannon'. You might want to check with User:Tariqabjotu, whom I asked to block my account, why he has not done so earlier. As I already wrote on my talk page, since it is obviously me who is the problem, you might be better of without me anyway. --Dodo19 (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a look back in the edits for this article and the 'harmful' editing seems to start with an edit in September 2009 linking to "ripoffreport" There may be something to it being not 100% 'kosher'. 220.101 talk^\Contribs 09:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Andi from Nimbuzz here. I see you have deleted our wiki page and now the access is blocked. Can you please restore access to it and undelete the page? Also can you give me an advice on what needs to be done about it so we can avoid this kind of issues in the future. I appreciate your time. Andi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.49.28 (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

1) absolutely not. It was protected from (re)creation because users kept recreating hopelessly unacceptable pages. That's a total waste of Wikipedia system- and administrator-resources. 2) WP:CORP is pretty clear. Conversely, the WP:CSD speedy-deletion criteria are as well. DMacks (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your feedback. I agree with you and I trust you have made the right decision by deleting it. I think that Nimbuzz is a big player in its space and a WIKI entry would be only fair. Since the access is restricted for an undetermined period I would really appreciate any advice you can give me on what do to get the article back. To be clear I do not intend to do it myself, but we have a lot of users asking us what happened with the WIKI page and how they can help to get it back.

Thanks in advance for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreipiftor (talk • contribs) 10:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I made a big revert on what looks like an ongoing student essay project on conformational isomerism. I figured you are watching, don't be alarmed though, we will eventually reinstate the good stuff. I hope.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. See a few sections up this talk page where an editor and I discussed a bit of it. I'm going to continue to be scarce the next few days (first week of class!). DMacks (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you see building on fire? why go you cover up it? This is relay boring spot such unsophisticated way of deception —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter whether I or you see it or claim it's definitely not visible. WP:RS trumps WP:TRUTH, WP:OR analysis, and WP:FRINGE/conspiracy theories on Wikipedia. DMacks (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I know that everyone can contest a speedy deletion and that, after that, the page should be brought to XfD (or PRODded); however, the editor who contested my speedy seems not to be aware of the fact that G11 applies to every page on Wikipedia (and that userpages of indeffed users can be speedied per G6 too), so I'd like to ask you to please reconsider, invoke WP:IAR and, clearly if you think my tag was appropriate, speedy the page; it's not a problem to take it to MfD, but I think it would be a snow case... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 16:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah yeah. Looks like someone else nuked it already. DMacks (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I hadn't noticed; sorry for bothering you, then... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 19:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries...wasn't deleted until well after you posted here. DMacks (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning regarding linking the website. I wanted to include the full title of the paper and the author. I redid the change so that now it leads to the PDF on its source page, along with the link to the Electric Railroder's Association. Thanks. LoreMariano (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, DMacks. You have new messages at Ialsoagree's talk page.
Message added 16:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ialsoagree (talk · contribs) 16:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I will kindly as you to please mind your own business as you have no reason to delete the page for Lemonade Magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwinglemons (talk • contribs) 07:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have a desire to see Wikipedia serve as an encyclopedia of notable topics, which yours isn't. What is your business here, and does it align with the policies for articles here? As an admin, one of my tasks is cleaning up behind editors who refuse to abide by our even minimal standards of inclusion (WP:N, for instance). DMacks (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't put their to promote "my" product, you had no grounds, but it doesn't matter, you obviously needed something to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwinglemons (talk • contribs) 07:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm here to build an encyclopedia. You're headed towards getting blocked for being unable to even have a civil discussion. DMacks (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)