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.
We appreciate your fervent but futile attempts at keeping this motley of information afloat. However, this use of a warning template Is NOT applicable. Sincere quote: "These templates are placed on talk pages to warn a user against vandalism". The premise of this statement is that the edit was vandalism but it is clearly not since it does NOT violate any policy (the only policy given for WP:Done is that quote "This template is often used..." and often is NOT specific for what the use of the template is) and you have NOT justified this as vandalism. Dust429 (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, that was soapboxing and I apologize. But clearly, in my eyes, there is no racism in that writing, and here is why. Medicaid will not cover a poor young white chap like me making less than 15k yearly. But if I have a minority child, then they are happy to cover me. I believe I clearly made a racIAL comment mind you not mentioning any specific race, but not in any way raCIST. A racIAL comment would be something to the tune of "Black men are singled out and abused by law enforcement." Its a fact man, dont bury your head in the sand. Review medicaid's policies before you call me a raCIST instead of the federal government. With that, I mean no disrespect and realize that I got a little longwinded. How can I get that information in a less personal manner onto the article, or perhaps a different article? I was under the impression thats what wikipedia is all about, regardless of my personal implications in the writing, there were some facts that need to be out there. A response would be much appreciated. - [email protected]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.9.108 (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
If There is no Scientific proof for what Kent Hovind is saying, than why doesnt anybody have proof for what he is saying does not have proof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfietkau (talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Fine, i apologize for my words and grammar. But I feel that mentioning of facts isn't a problem in wiki. Now I have come up with an authenticate reference.I corrected the grammar and removed the words showing personal opinions. Hope its alright now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunkinghunk (talk • contribs) 00:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
That wording sounded better. Facts are always welcome! But anything like simply saying a movie "bombed" is not...that's an analysis or opinion of how it did compared to expectations or other nonfactual basis. DMacks (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Puli_(film)
WHat should i do when multiple users revert the changes that I make. All the changes that I make are backed up with references. So instead of fighting with every user, rather i prefer undoing the changes they make.Hunkinghunk (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)hunkinghunk
You need to start a discussion on the talk-page to get consensus that your edits are appropriate. Fighting and repeatedly undoing without discussion is called "edit-warring" and is completely unacceptable. Or else, if you think their edits are hoplessly unacceptable ("blatant vandalism"), you can request that the page be "semi-protected" to prevent IPs from editing it (see WP:AIV). DMacks (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
It was tagged for speedy-deletion as a test-page, which is what it appeared to be. Googling for the phrase finds many hits with several distinct meanings, none of which seemed to be what you had written, and there were no cites in the article. Gotta admit, that doesn't sound like a viable start for an article. Looked a lot like a test-page, or a standard failure due to lack of notability/WP:NFT. Speedy-deletion makes no judgment on the editor, merely the page. Let me know if you are planning to add reliable sources so that the condition can be verified as real and notable for this term as you describe it, I'll be happy to restore to the article or to a sandbox in your userspace for further work. DMacks (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
UPDATE - I reported the anon user and the anon IP is blocked for now. I see more IPs cropping up. It's a mess, but I guess that I'll have to watch over it. Mspraveen (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I just blocked another in that range. Part of that range is a school, so either there are shared computers or students are assigned random/variable IPs from a pool when they log on. Definitely a problem trying to inhibit users when they are only identifiable by variable IPs (assuming it's really just one or a few actual people rather than lots of friends involved). I'll semi-protect the article if there's any more IP problem there. Interesting how many of the same are also making bad edits to Puli (film)--though that one also has problems with several other IP sets. DMacks (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Rehman Malik
I see my fault and have corrected it on the main page. I restored the page by Gimmetrow on 19 Apr 2010, with some edits to it. I double-checked the edits in between, most of which was vandalism. The reason I had to go almost 5 months back was that it retained all the links, whereas the latest one didn't. Similarly infobox and image are restored. Thank you for your input and feel free to contact me with any query. Razzsic (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Oooooh:/ Thanks for the heads-up, I don't recall seeing that pattern before, but now it does look like exactly as you say. DMacks (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
JKPRS Technologies (We Develops your Expectations in Realty)
JKPRS Technologies emphasis on client satisfaction with quality work and honesty. We focus on technology, commitment and quality assurance which help us to serve our client better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKPRS (talk • contribs) 05:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
My expectation was that you would stop using wikipedia for advertising. In reality, you don't know how to spell "reality", and now you're indefinitely blocked from editing wikipedia. Hopefully potential clients will notice how poor your quality assurance seems to be. DMacks (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
User from IP address 213.6.11.49
i saw that recently you gave "final warning" to that ip address 213.6.11.49. Today he continues his edits and comment on talk pages that are just disruptive and shows he completely ignores everyone who tried to explain to him wikipedia policies. Can you please make this stop? Thanks LibiBamizrach (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Heeeeeee. Does this mean I get to be in the cabal? Nice. I think the ANI request should be titled "Removal of critical Chuck Norris information from article's talk page." Anyway, thanks for stepping in. I try to avoid wading into anything on that page other than removing crap. OhNoitsJamieTalk14:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I always assumed it was one of those "if you have to ask, the answer is no" sort of things. Though maybe if you think hard enough, you might realize you already are in. Obviously Chuck Norris doesn't ask to join the cabal though...the cabal asks to join him:) Now let's never speak of this organization in public again. DMacks (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
When you clearly used a friend to meatpuppet, as can be seen in the edits, then you shuold resign from your post as admin here on wikipedia if you think it is ok to break the rules. Threatening blocks to prevent a picture being added to an article is also completely out of line. You're not fooling anyone.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome to file a WP:SPI if you think there is puppetry. You are welcome (as I already told you) to file WP:ANI if you think there are admin-behavior problems. Otherwise, you are not welcome to continue to spout off here, making unsubstantiated accusations of puppetry. You've been advised how to proceed if you are serious about your concerns as you stated them and want to get them resolved. DMacks (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm completely serious: put up or shut up time: file those WP:ANI reports or stop wasting my time. You are hereby forbidden to use this talk-page for any further purpose except to place a single note when you file them. DMacks (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
deletion of my article
Hello I am trying to add an article about one of the pioneer bands of the 80's punk scene and have had my submission marked for deletion, Circle One is a very relevant band to the history of Los Angeles punk and have a large importance as well as a huge following. Circle One has released 4 full length albums to date, two of which, Patterns of Force and Survive are considered staple albums in a Los Angeles punk record collection, Circle One has been referenced in most of the history of punk movies as well as being a feature in Dave Markey's Slog Movie and were also written about in all of the punk zines of the times even recently Henry Rollins has used stories of the band and the notable frontman John Macias in his spoken word act. John Macias death was a high profile incident and is a part of Los Angeles punk history and should have the relevance to be included here, many associated acts are featured here like this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_34
as the drummer of this band along with the original members I have an interest to see this here along with the other bands of the time, what do i need to do to get this up here? Thanks(Shortdrums (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC))
Step 1: the article is absolutely not allowed to be a cut'n'paste job from a copyrighted website (see WP:COPYVIO--that's a key reason of the recent deletions). Step 2: the article needs to at least mention some key aspects of its notability (please read that link...it's not quite the same as the usual English meaning of that word)--actually, WP:BAND has all the guidelines for you. Beware of WP:COI...it's unexpectedly difficult to write a nonbiased article about your own group. DMacks (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Reply about TLC
There was no link or notice about a discussion, and usually in low profile pages I wouldn't think consensus would be required, especially as it was straight forward. New Name > Move page accordingly to unused space. - Mike Beckham (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Move notices are always on the article's talk-page, big yellowish box. No worries, the move itself wasn't bad, just confusing when I went to do the administrative closure of the move-req discussion. I don't know why move-reqs aren't noted on the articles themselves--might be a good thing to ask at WT:RM. DMacks (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Lazer Dragon Party Kollective
The Lazer Dragon Party is a legitimate Political party founded in South Carolina in 2009 I am really upset that you have deleted my initial post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarnivoreJ (talk • contribs) 21:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I think it is helpful to place an overview article to the issues of gyros and navigation. So please do not remove it. It is not advertising for sure, this we do better with Google ... ;-). But I am often asked to provide information in Wikipedia so I did.
Please consider and have a nice day.
Edgar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgar v. Hinüber (talk • contribs) 20:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Seems to fail WP:EL: the info could be included in the article itself instead of linking out to an external simple webpage. The edit-pattern was blatant spam, so the solution is blanket revert. Feel free to propose on specific article's talk-pages for your company's material. DMacks (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi DMacks. Just wanted to say good catch on reverting all the link additions. I see you've overtaken me reverting the last few. I took the time to clean up EvH's contributions on those articles which directly deal with the gyroscope technology cited in the PDF (without linkspamming to the manufacturer's page), but most of these articles have no bearing (pun intended!) or direct relation to the link that was added. EvH, next time please read WP:EL and ask yourself whether the link is directly relevant to the article in question. Also, simply adding external links to articles without using explanatory WP:EDITSUMMARYs will always raise suspicion, especially since you've done no other editing on your account since 2006. Zunaid20:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks (and ha!:) for doing the followup/cleanup edits. There's definitely some valid info-source there, as you say, just not the link-dumping. DMacks (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I would support the "40 years of INS" link on some articles, particularly IMU and gyroscopes and maybe even ballistic missiles (innovation in gyroscopes over the last 50 years was largely driven by missile INS). We should judge this on the content added and its relevance, not on the pattern of how it was added. WP:AGF still applies, and I see Edgar far more as someone well-meaning but unfamiliar with Wikipedia than an evil link stuffer (we have quite enough of those, and they're not like this). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to re-add. I actually spot-checked a handful at first, and saw none that came close to WP:EL, so I pulled the revert lever and left him a msg about ext-links. Then he did it again (via 86.59.96.58)--the first one I saw from that was same pattern of ELfail. I have no doubt that INS is important to various things. That's exactly the sort of information that should be in the articles themselves, supported by refs, not just listed EL without explanation of context/relationship. DMacks (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Really this belongs (as so few things often do) under "Further reading". It's the sort of article we ought to be writing, but fail to. A historical survey with a readable narrative. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
first of all, thx for helping me. i have one more question: how do i increase the content in the box (not the box alone) in width and height, so that the box isnt equally to the text. i hope u understand me. and what is cellpading and cellspacing, isnt it that, or is it not that? thx--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T17:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
DefaultPadded Be careful of the overlap (padding expands around the content, but doesn't expand the line-spacing used to display the content). Here's a nice description of it. DMacks (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of Shotokan Karate Coalition
Hi. I note that you have deleted my entry regarding the Shotokan Karate Coalition. This is unfortunate as I was in the process of editing and updating this when my server unfortunately crashed. This was not just an article promoting a karate club, but was about a major karate organisation which has huge influence and is very significant within the shotokan style of karate in Australasia and beyond.
The SKC was formed by Sensei Keith Geyer. He was originally affiliated to the Japan Karate Association (JKA - you have a wiki entry for this organisation), but left in 2004 to set up the SKC with a number of dojos within the Oceania region. Sensei Keith, along with his brother Derrick were the very first brothers to both hold the rank of 7th dan within the JKA. He is world renowned within the karate world.
The SKC technical director is Sensei Stan Schmidt (of whom wiki has an entry). Sensei Stan was at one stage the only non japanese member of the Shihan and was invited to instruct by JKA at their headquarters in Tokyo to grades up to 7th dan. He has advised numerous members of the film and television industry on all things to do with martial arts and is recognised as a world authority on the subject.
So as can be seen, this is not a club promotion page. Far from it. The SKC are a major player in the area of Karate within the Australasian area and beyond with numerous affiliated clubs. I am therefore requesting you reinstate the entry and allow it to be updated with further information, showing it's place as a significant organisation. Thank you - Kiwi Karateka Kiwi Karateka (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Done. Note that it was deleted because it did not explain anything notable about the group itself, not because it looked like advertising. Please update with more info soon though...see WP:GROUP about some standard requirements for an article. DMacks (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you DMacks. It is appreciated very much and I understand your comments why it was initially deleted. Please accept my apologies. The article should be updated in the next few days as I am just checking/verifying the accuracy of information which will be put in the article. This is my first one, so please bear with me. Thanks for your assistance. Kiwi Karateka (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome! If you will need "a fairly long time", we can move it to a work area, other editors can give some feedback, and then send it back to the main article when it's ready. WP:FIRSTARTICLE has some pointers. DMacks (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to trouble you again, DMacks but I have updated the page and there is still work to be done, but i have received a further intention to delete. I had thought that this was placed on hold but I notice this was someone else now. Is there still a problem with it? Thanks for your help Kiwi Karateka (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Since writing the above, the entry has been deleted by another user :-( I really don't know what to do now. Have I upset someone with this entry? Sorry DMacks but I am genuinely at a loss? Thanks for your help anyway
Obtaining text from deleted article.
Hi,
I created article Slop_-_Tradition_Irish_dish in March but it was subsequently deleted in April.
Would it be possible to obtain the text submitted?
Many thanks in advance,
I noticed that you undid the addition of "C. Ezekiel Hawkins" (class of '99) as a notable alumni of the Groton School. He is listed as having a Oscar nomination by the Academy of Arts and Sciences for direction. I refer you to : http://www.altfg.com/blog/movie/student-academy-awards-2010-finalists-announced/ In 2010 he was one of 9 people worldwide that rec'd a nomination for narrative film for best director. In the context of notable alumni you have allowed many people who are simply "actors" and a number of others with lesser professional achievement in the film industry. You have also allowed others with, in my opinion, lesser achievements in the business or government community. What is the basis for this decision?
-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterpa69 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:NLIST is the standard guideline. There was no citation given for this addition, and the first two pages of google-hits for his name did not find anyone whose description matched someone with this type of credential: verifiabiliy is a key WP policy. The cite you give lists a student award, hardly an "Oscar"--make sure you don't accidentally over-state the accomplishment. DMacks (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
You can use the "E-mail this user" link in the "Toolbox" area of my userpage. I'm not sure how much I can do though, especially in off-wiki communication with an unidentified user. "Offensive material added, then removed" happens pretty regularly and it's rare that there is any further action needed, but obviously I don't know the details here yet. DMacks (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I tried to respond to your email, but the message bounced ("550 550 5.2.1 The email account that you tried to reach is disabled. p57si3930264eeh.12 (state 14)."). DMacks (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Taybeh
Hello DMacks,
In the introduction of the Taybeh page, the fourth line says "It is the last all-Christian community in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.[3][4]" while I do not think that we should use the terms "Judea, Samaria, and Gaza" because it might be misleading and there is no need to mention them.
The official name of that region is Palestine. Since some might get offended by using the term "Palestine" then why don't we use the term "Occupied Palestinian territories" which includes West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.
Content disputes are best handled on the article's talk-page. It's not polite for two editors to discuss a third editor in a place that third editor is not likely to read. DMacks (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
i work for the Toronto District SChool Board. I am trying to write information related to our school Corvette Junior Public School. You deleted it because it was similar to work found on the TDSB website. What you see on the TDSB site it also what I wrote. Can you please restore the Wiki article?
I have tried three times to add a note on the art references to the Möbius strip. You have deleted my entries, first, because is spam. Could you please tell me the reasons why you think my entry is spam? Second, because only the title is relevant to the article and the rest is 'waaay off the topic'. If you read the content of my entry it states clearly that this movie is about a subway system turned into a Möbius strip. Third, the problem of notability of this film. It is true, the director does not have an entry in wikipedia. However, it is difficult to justify that a short story and the cover of an album can have a place in the entry, and not a film that won prizes in the festivals of Buenos Aires, Bangkok, La Habana, Huelva, Miami and Vienna. And, if there are too many details in the note, why not considering to get rid of some of them? Finally, As some of the novels in which the Möbius strip appears are labelled as sci-fi, this film can be characterised as political, because of its particular context and comments made by the director.86.14.121.36 (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I added a note after the second, "actually the problem is notability of this (creator is redlink, etc.)--WP:NOTDIR. The original is already discussed (*is* notable)". The essence is that the article is about Mobius strips, not extensive details about something on a related topic. So "how a work of fiction specifically relates" is on-topic. Other details about the fiction are off-topic. That's why my first comment was WP:UNDUE. Also, the link that was included (Gustavo Mosquera) was red, and there was no evidence of substantial notability of the film. Again, things that are not notable deserve less mention compared to things that are from notable people or are notable in their own right. This particular work is just a derivative of an existing one: Deutsch's work merits more mention because it's from a bluelink (he is more notable). A remake of it might merit a sentence. At heart, wikipedia is not a collection of all information related to everything. Material has to stand (or fall) on its own merits: if there are other pieces that are not appropriate, they should go away (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't justify a different piece of stuff existing). You can't expect readers to know that a film is award-winning unless you provide a link to support that (verifiability policy)--doing so makes the case for including a mention of it because winning awards makes it notable. Maybe it's notable enough to write an article about it? Then that article can have details about it, including what it represents, etc., and the Mobius article can mention and link to it. See Wikipedia:Notability (films) for details. DMacks (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I was not expecting the readers or the co-authors of WP to know about the prizes received by this film. I accompanied my note with a footnote to the webpage of the film in the IMDB, where it is possible to find the information about the prizes. Second: Could you explain the criteria on the basis of which a work -any work of art- is only notable if the author is notable. Are not works of art notable on their own merit, regardless the creator? Third: How do you justify that a story is notable but not the movie that was inspired by it? Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is notable and Jackson's Lord of the Rings is not? Finally, there is something behind your criteria of notability that needs to be addressed. Any encyclopaedia aspires to some degree of universality. Within this general principle what is notable should not only depends on the particular or local importance given to a particular topic. Sure, this is the English version of Wikipedia, but being one of the best sci-fi Argentinian movies should also count as a sign of notability. Are we here in front of another case in point regarding the Anglo-american bias-limits of Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.121.36 (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Ahah! I didn't look deeply at the links in the imdb entry to see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117069/awards. Works of art are notable if they're notable, per the standard WP:GNG requirements. Being from a notable artist can help support a claim of notability, but it is definitely not required. But (as I already said) there has to be something notable and I did not see anything until you more clearly pointed out where to find it. There's no language or "other culture" bias--foreign awards could be just as important as Anglo ones, assuming they have similar status in their region. "One of the best sci-fi Argentinian movies" as verified by major awards is sufficient, regardless of whether those are major in Argentina, or a highly regarded French film festival, or US Academy Awards, or whatever else. The Wikipedia:Notability (films) article I previously mentioned has some pretty good guidelines.
So, moving on, you now have a film that does seem notable, and is relevant to the topic of the page--good to have it. It's also intrinsically related to another piece of content on the page--can link all that together instead of two separate ideas (and also highlight the notability of this film until it gets its own page). Here's my quick take at merging it in there (added content in bold):
In the short story A Subway Named Möbius, by A.J. Deutsch, the Boston subway authority builds a new line, but the system becomes so tangled that it turns into a Möbius strip, and trains start to disappear. The award-winning 1996 film Moebius, based on the Deutsch story, uses the disappearing trains as an allegory to the 30,000 people who disappeared during times of the Argentinian military dictatorship.[1]
Concise, highlights the relevance to the topic, explains why this work is important. The article's talk-page had previously raised concerns that the "in fiction" and related sections were becoming long and lacking focus, so this edit would keep it from being "just another separate item in a list". DMacks (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Tweaked a bit to clarify that it's about Argentinian dictatorship. I assume that is correct? Is it about a specific time-period? IMDB gives a plot summary, but it does not mention the allegorical reference. DMacks (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I think your revert snuck in under my deeper revert and I was busy hiding the original edits. Anyways, just wanted to leave you a note just in case you had a "Why did that crazy bird do that to my edit?!?" moment. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
No problemo! However, your message to 173.71.14.122 is completely over the top...WP:CIVIL and all that. Heck, that isn't even the user that did the vandalizing--was just a WP:AGF change to some content (albeit not as good as the original) and reversion of some of the badness. 82.132.139.231 is the vandal here. DMacks (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
You have deleted my article about Lakas ng Diwang Tomasino, but I'm still in the process of editing it. I would need your assistance for it not to be deleted again. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Migs 0412 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
No problem asking:) I have no idea how or where to find information about this group. But it needs to be done if an article is to exist. Newspapers, major magazines, comprehensive websites covering major social/political issues, etc. The bottom line is that some groups just are not notable enough to merit an article at this time--that idea of notability is a non-negotiable minimum requirement. Lots of things exist, but wikipedia needs actual evidence of independent (third-party) reporting on them. Also, make sure what you write is objective statement of facts. Lots of the content of the deleted article sounded like advertising or biased/self-promtion of the topic rather than an encyclopedia article (see WP:TONE). That's why it is so important to use independent, reliable sources as the basis for the article. DMacks (talk) 05:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) That article is about "all the student groups". Its references appear to be lists of groups. You are proposing an article about a specific one, so you need (per WP:RS) specific reporting on that specific group. And (again) "the group exists" is not sufficient basis for an article specifically about the group. There is no question that this group exists. The problem is the wikipedia notability standard: does anyone not affiliated with the group care enough about it to report in depth about it? For your specific question, Wikipedia itself is explicitly forbidden to be used as sources in its own articles. DMacks (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your concerns for Wikipedia, but please stop going back through my edits and undoing them. I work for a company that works on behalf of various brands and have been explicitly requested to add this content to their 'official' Wikipedia page.
They like having the fan input, so don't want to lock off the pages, but if you continue to interfere, then that is exactly what we'll have to do.
If the placing of the link is inappropriate – as, I must confess, one was – then by all means replace it, but to remove it (especially when the fans of these shows WILL be interested) is out of line.
Just a friendly word so you know where I'm at, I hope it's received in the right manner. To be honest, we haven't got the time to run these pages ourselves, so to lock them off would be a grand shame.
WP:EL and WP:SPAM sound like where you should be reading. Wikipedia isn't a place to "get the word out" and we don't care at all what the subjects of articles or external content providers want. One or two insertions that are clearly appropriate wouldn't have raised any flags. Lots of links added without discussion by a new editor pointing to some website different than other official-looking links in the same article?---that's spam. DMacks (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
has turned abusive, and is engaging in sockpuppetry. See the revision history of my talk page, where he switches between being logged in and not logged in, while entering an edit where he claims to not be himself. The IP he's editing from today is the same one that vandalized my user page (not even my talk page) a few weeks back. I would take him to SPI, but I need some guidence in how that works.I'd appreciate your help.oknazevad (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I gave a warning to the latest IP. If any further problems, I'll help walk you through and support an SPI filing. DMacks (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I see you found that IP range also has a fondness for Makati Science High School. Definitely could semiprotect both of those if the problem continues. I've watchlisted them both, but will probably be off-line for the next few hours at least...feel free to WP:RFPP if it becomes high-volume and I don't catch it in time. DMacks (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:RD/SCIENCE
Regarding the blocks and page protection. I thought about going to WP:RPP but then I saw this on WP:VANDALISM: "...edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, but edit warring." How come you blocked those Russian accounts as "Vandalism Only" and then protected the page for "Excessive Vandalism" when they were "Edit-warring-sock-puppets"? Don't get me wrong; a block was clearly in order. I'm just wondering why you cited vandalism. — Fly by Night(talk)20:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The situation appears to be "rapidly created new accounts solely to edit-war". That pushed it outside the realm of a normal "content dispute" as the accounts are nothing but socks or block-evasion solely for this purpose. So it seemed more than just abusing multiple accounts or a legit content dispute--seemed sensible to be consistent in the reasoning based on whole situation, though "multiple accounts", "disruptive editing", etc could have been more specific. DMacks (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Why do you keep changing out my cited factual content on Oscillo. You are violating the neutrality act. While other negative cited content exists on the page you are deleting my factual positive content. Every time I go to put it back up I am flagged in an "edit" war. This content is direct from the Oscillo manufacturer Boiron and 100% factual. What is your reasoning for taking down my Wikipedia posting. This is unfair for my rights as a user on Wikipedia to not be able to add my contributions. Please stop taking down my content or I will press further into Wikipedia for assistance.Ced920 (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Several editors disputed its inclusion with various reasonings. Once that starts happening, it's up to you to get some discussion going to see if there is consensus for including it (wikipedia is driven by consensus of editors, and it's pretty rough to be on the opposing side of something one feels strongly about). The talk-page of the article itself is the best place to start (centralized, so that others interested in the article will see it). Be sure to read the existing discussions there, as your idea may have already been discussed. DMacks (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the additional information and your comment :) The page is evolving, and will take a while but I'm liking how this is turning out. Take care :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Ethyl Sulfate hunt for sources and learning material!
I've noticed the changes on the Ethyl sulfate article, nothing wrong with the changes, and feel stupid for the formula I wrote out. Probably revised that 3-4 times. Well I want to expand on this article a bit more, but I am having difficulties in finding material on the subject of "alcohol sulfates" for lack of better terms. Have any suggestions or ideas? More than anything I'm trying to learn, and whatever I find I would like to contribute. Ticky-Tack (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I am a teacher at LWHS in Ocala, Florida. I am attempting to change our LWHS Wiki page for today only in order to illustrate for my students the fact that Wiki is not always the best source of information due to user accessibility. I realize this is ironic since I'm not adept enough to make a change without you reverting it, but I'd appreciate if you'd let me make a change for today only to make this point in my classes.
Why should we? There are already published papers in real journals proving the fact...you're just wasting our time and resources. Why should students believe anything they read *anywhere* (especially on-line), and why should they trust one website (with a reputation for fixing mistakes and citing external sources for cross-reference) less than any other?
Interestingly, you could spin it the other way, that even though it's open-access, it still does seem to have a pretty good record of fixing mistakes. Lots of clever teachers actually build whole lessons around having their students write wikipedia articles to help everyone learn 1) how to write to actual audiences other than just a self-contained essay for a teacher and 2) how to work collaboratively. You could explain that you can't rely on any specific item at a specific instant (because it may be the interval between a vandal wasting everyone's time and a good editor having to spend time cleaning it up), but instead look at the sources cited for cross-checking. Just because we are more correct than many other sources (including Britannica!) according to actual published studies doesn't mean you can trust "something you read on the internet" no matter what site you read. DMacks (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to explain your point of view--I do appreciate that. I certainly don't intend to waste your time and admire and respect the fact that you are guarding the wall, as it were, to ensure as much accuracy as can be expected from an open-access, user-generated site. For students, seeing that their school is described as being located "on the Moon" for a day is a superior attention-grabber to diving into some of the dustier specifics of the journals you reference. But your point is well-taken. As for which sites to deem credible/reliable, I think that's one of the most important skills any student or adult can develop, and I would argue that the dearth of critital thinking vis-a-vis site reliability sits at the crux of the current political climate of paranoia (on both sides). Students get more info from the web than any other venue now, so it's that much more imperative that we equip them with the skills they need to identify and confirm the primary source, gather info from multiple sources, and, yes, separate the wheat from the chaffe when it comes to reliability of a site's info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjpmiller (talk • contribs) 18:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
editing
D Macks I am getting increasingly concerned about your attitude. You are constantly deleting editing and undoing what I consider to be perfectly acceptable posting. please stop this I really do not think that you contribute anything to Wiki apart from cause distress and concern to other editors84.13.103.64 (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals#Categories: Arsenic fellow editor PlasmaPhysics is asking for resolution on the many discussions and reversions etc. concerning his recent and intermittently ongoing categorizations. It would be helpful if you and some other administrator helped resolve this case. It seems that there is little support for his recent work involving categories for As and Si (and probably other elements). My recommendation would to ask him to cease work on categories within the Chemistry project, period. I sent the same note to Beetstra who is also experienced in such disputes. But the main thing is that Plasma deserves some response. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for watching the Hemp article. There's a huge amount of bogus information about hemp on the Internet, mostly from the sites of proponents which seem to copy each other. Insisting on reliable sources there is thus especially important. See [2] for some previous discussions in this area. --John Nagle (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining WHY you were continually deleting part of our update to the page, a list of team names, as I had no idea why it was a point of contention. The links provided were very helpful. WP:BITE. Campcanadensis (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Dead links
Some of the dead links make claims about living persons. As such they need to be removed aggressively. If someone comes with sources later on, feel free to restore the content.VRtalk09:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I think with BLPs, you should find the source first, then insert the content. Not the other way around. I've reverted half your edit (namely the part concerning the BLP).VRtalk10:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Sourced. Might be helpful to use a clearer edit-summary when you're boldly removing (which would have been the correct action in this case if it weren't verifiable from an alt source) rather than just tag'n'waiting. DMacks (talk) 10:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you talking about this?[3] Both links appear to be dead links. I should have been more clear, but you should also ensure that when you revert, you don't violate BLP.VRtalk10:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I was talking about the initial removals. We're both on short trigger but opposite approaches here I think...you urgently wanting to remove potential BLP problems, me trying to keep content sourced. You stating what you did but not why this approach instead of re-sourcing or tagging, me seeing removal of material that has a source listed and does not seem unreasonable based on his own well-sourced page, and that he's actually not a living person. All's well that ends well...it's got live source now. DMacks (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help
That Wendy Starland article has been clobbered lately and I may have to go back in and protect it again. Thanks for your help in reverting the vandalism. She told me that her management team has been monitoring the article because of the vandalism; they're pretty sure they know who's responsible. Take care, thanks again and a merry Christmas to you. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into the Michigan editors. Can I leave it entirely to you, since you were uninvolved in the earlier fracas? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The account naming scheme suggests they are using shared accounts--all students in Group 3 of the class contributing as User:Chem507f10grp3, and this comment proves it. That's completely unacceptable, per WP:NOSHARE policy. How have they managed to keep doing that this long (this isn't the first time for this project is it?)? For goodness sakes...User:MichChemGSI is even a wp ambassador! DMacks (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Question on insertion reaction
I'm still a little confused about what is happening with the insertion reaction page. It seems that someone who was not a regular wiki editor and had never written nor edited a chemistry page, blanked the Insertion reaction page. Can it be put back up? Sorry, if you are getting messages from more than one person. Both the students involved in the project (this user) and our librarian have been trying to sort out the workings of wiki. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks. Chem507f10grp3 (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
There was never anything more than a single sentence at that article, and then a link to carbene. User:Smokefoot, who has been working extensivelt on chemistry articles here for about 5 years now, changed it to a redirect to Migratory insertion. I agree with that action, since this target article at the time actually had substantial content about the reaction (and actually did include everything that was on the old migratory insertion article). So instead of a one-sentence stub and no way to even find the detailed specific reaction article, readers wind up finding out the same brief definition and also lots about a certain type of it. When someone eventually has the time to write a paragraph or so intro to the general reaction and a sentence-or-two summary of each type (probably would include migratory insertion, oxidative addition, carbene insertion?) with a link to each's specific article (or at least a section of an article that covers the reaction), that could be used instead of the redirect...nobody's done it yet. DMacks (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I linked this to satire not to imply anything about either the "achievments" or their receiving a prize being satire as such, but because "First making people laugh and then making them think" (or "thought provoking humour")is itself a very neat potted definition of satire!! This particlar link is not, of course of prime importance - more a "by the way" or "incidentally" - but it is NOT "original research" as much as common sense, and I think DID add something, albeit something fairly minor, to the point of the lead. I have in fact rewritten the lead (complete with link) to make the whole thing a little clearer. Your comments very welcome, of course. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
'broken' SMILES/InChI/IUPAC Names, etc.
I see you are scanning for broken SMILES - could you apply the same trick to scan for broken IUPACNames, SMILES, InChI's etc - where they have been split with e.g. a <br /> or a odd character (they may have been copied that way from ChemSpider, or broken intentionally because they are too wide). Thanks! --Dirk BeetstraTC16:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I vaguely remember some concerns about whether "long SMILES strings" (and by extension InChI and other machine-string identifiers) should be manually broken with <br> or given whitespace to allow browser-wrapping. I disagree with that approach (a main point of SMILES is to allow automated search/comparison!), so will happily remove them. The concern was that a long unbreakable string would make a mess of the infobox layout, but now they are [hide] by default. And an alternative approach was to have SMILES1 be the unbroken string (vs SMILES being displayed) or something like that, but again now we're hiding all by default and still need to display the unbroken one if asked, so there's no real use for the broken one. Sorry for rambling here:) Same applies to more human-readable strings like IUPACName, not sure if browsers are smart enough to allow breaking at hyphens (and most "long" names have lots of them), but definitely should at most insert whitespace to *allow* breaking rather than newlines to force it (which also entails browser-specific rendering consideration). Let me know how to proceed. FWIW, User:DMacks/SMILES problems is my work-status here. DMacks (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi DMacks, I stuck my nose where it don't belong, in a Baltimore hornet's nest. Please, hon®, have a look at the question on the talk page, my response to it, and the two edits I made to the article. I've tried to play by the RS and No Synthesis rules. Feel free to revert me if I'm wrong, or to block me on sight. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey, don't you HON® me! It's trademarked, you know! Thanks for the clarification on that matter, and for rephrasing it in the article--I left you a brief note on the talk page. Toodles, Drmies (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't understand why the other honchos working on the article can't act as honorably as you, but instead insist on honking their own horns about it! They should all just go to Honduras in a Honda. DMacks (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I requested page protection for their most common targets, but I don't hold out much hope it will go through. It may be a case where they will just have to be reverted whenever they pop up. Their continued allegations that I have a COI and demands for me to be blocked from editing are a little tiresome but harmless, sorta like a mosquito buzzing around. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots16:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Might be useful to put together a WP:LTA for it, or at least a separate page in your userspace listing this guy's pattern/history/etc. That way you can already have evidence for anyone who doesn't already recognize it (and I and others could comment so it's clear that it's not just your word against his, etc.)...jump right to {{vandalism4im}} first and then WP:AIV next as "likely puppet of long-term vandal". Seems like you'd get faster admin support for blocking IPs (they "only" change once a day or few) rather than long-term semi for a fairly large pool of target articles. DMacks (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The LTA is a good idea - I would be able to link to the page when reverting in order to avoid the appearance of edit warring. Semi-protection is certainly a less than ideal band-aid. Thank for the tip and I'll drop you a note when I have the LTA draft complete so that you can use it as well if you'd like. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots16:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Yup, obvious...to me...after I go to look. Definitely important not to assume others have or can get a clue though:) DMacks (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
is there a way ?
hi DMacks,Is there any method or bot to update numerical records and scores automatically to player pages on wikipedia from cricinfo and other sites ? SyberGod (chat) 19:03, 15 September 2025 UTC[refresh]
There's no existing bot or similar "mechanical" process that I know of. Probably wouldn't be hard to write one, assuming the sources you have in mind have stable and well-defined formats for their data pages. I'm definitely not the person to write it, but the concept looks like an easy bit of programming. DMacks (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I will be on semi-break next week or so
End of the semester seems like a good time for me to take a few days off-wiki. Might do a little work here and there, but please don't expect an immediate response from me for the next week, 10 days, something like that. Happy/merry-whatever-is-appropriate to you. DMacks (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
“
And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.
”
— (Alma 7:10)
The ThingT/C is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:TTTSNB/Merry_Christmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi DMacks,
We truly want to work with the community for our courses, and as we are about to try something new, I thought that I would consult you for your thoughts and ideas. We would like to take advantage of the new media allowances on Wikipedia and insert animations for readers to better understand the arrow-pushing process of mechanisms. We create animations using a gifbuilder, and I have added one here in EAS. What are your thoughts about these animations? and How can we best insert them/make them stick and for the community to accept them? Thanks for all of your help!
MichChemGSI (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi DMacks. I would really appreciate if you could upload the chemical structures you draw to Commons. I am quite sure that I do not have to list the advantages as you already know them. You might want to use Commons:Commons:Upload/Chemistry. Thank you in advance. --Leyo00:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
