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.
I don't see any vandalism on that page, and I have no idea what other specific page(s) are part of the same pattern, so "not without more evidence". I'm going to be off-line for next few hr...consider filing at WP:RFPP so other admins can handle it promptly? DMacks (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know much about the cite linking, but if the same person is required to be written several different ways, that's a clear bug in...whatever is using that data. As is noted on that talk-page, it's not uncommon for writers to write more than one thing in a year. I'm fine with workarounds (and I know templates get pretty hairy!) but make sure they are very clearly documented as such (embedded HTML comments, for example, with links to the problem or somesuch) so later people who are not familiar with it can figure out why something that looks poor on its face was done a certain way (example: I had no idea why you were talking about HTML ids for a wiki text issue). I wish WP had an "annotate" view in which one could see the revision responsible for each part of a given page instead of having to bindly search back through page history:/ DMacks (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
me
I'm just a bus guy
Bus Master-Transit Bus a.k.a. The Know It All Of Buses!! 01:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bus Master-Transit Bus (talk • contribs)
Fujsmith
It doesn't appear that J.smith is around right now. Are you able to get a Checkuser? We both know that this just can't be someone's first account and it would be good to weed out any possible sleepers.--The LegendarySky Attacker05:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
No. The original poster is (I assume) created and therefore copyrighted by WMATA and/or some contracted ad agency. That's who owns copyright here, and only they can release it. You can't release your faithful "picture of a picture" for public use because that violates the copyright of the original--it's not your creative work. The current uploading system describes items that are considered user-created (and therefore within user/uploader's power to release copyright) as
Entirely my own work - I created it, own all the rights to it, and have not used anyone else's work in making it
The act of scanning or photocopying someone else's work is not considered to be "creative".
How are things progressing. I don't see that you have made any recent edits and only a couple issues remain. If you intend to continue responding to the GAR get back to me before the weekend. Hit my talk page or the discussion page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you reverted "nulltiltpoker" spam. This person has been relentless. Do you have the ability to semi-protect this article? Hazir (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Just had a novel kind of edit conflict. I was looking at Jim Diamond (Mega Genius) and used HotCat to add category Living people. You deleted the article in the meantime, which is just fine by me, but HotCat seems to have recreated the article in order to add the category. Would you re-delete please? Thx.LeadSongDogcome howl15:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate you stepping in here. This is my first experience with multiple vandals supporting one another's edits...so hopefully I'm doing things in the correct order.
You already noted that 120.28.86.150 removed your comments, mine, and Rmcsamson's from the talk page. They just did it again. I did a rollback. It looks as though 120.28.86.150 also needs to be blocked...because they are working with other editors to protect copyright violation vandalism (?) Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I blocked him. You're doing fine, taking a gradual approach by first trying to explain the problem politely, and then escalating when they don't improve. It's really annoying when they team up like this! At least it's only a limited pool and such a clear policy violation. DMacks (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi DMAck. Maybe I'm still struggling in editing the History but I know you can help us to use the recent additional information in a proper manner so that at least before this week ends, it will be better. By the way, the source that I'd use ASIDE from the President's report is the FEU IABF Bulletin of Information (FEU IABF Handbook) that has been using in the University for decades. Is the University Handbook enough to used as a source/citation? Thanks (talk)
No, first that user should be educated in the hopes he realizes his mistakes and becomes a worthwhile editor rather than chasing him off at first offense (just like I'm doing with you) and WP:AGF until proven otherwise. Wikipedia needs new editors and scaring off people who don't understand how things work here at first doesn't help. DMacks (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello
It seems that I didn't edit the page properly. However, my intent was absolutely right. I was just going through the history of edits and I retrieved the one I liked most. You can also go and check bihartimes.com and I am damn sure that you will agree that this website is making false claims on Wiki. Just see the claim of receiving more than 3300000 visitors in November 2005. How can you allow a website to promote itself so blatantly. I am sure that wiki is for authentic information and not an interface to promote products, services and some below quality website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saveindia2009 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed that the above-named article and its talk page, which you protected, might be unprotected now so that unregistered users may edit them. --TS21:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The protection given the page has expired, and the same anonymous users and Unending247 have simply reinstated their edits without addressing the concerns. They've also been vandalizing my talk page. Perhaps you can help me with this? Thanks. Rmcsamson (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Re-full-prot'ed and commented on art talk-page. Did they really just "fix" the 1955-ref concern by cut'n'pasting some other ref?? DMacks (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
My moving this material around has stripped the protection. Thought I'd let you know. :) You've been watching this one and know the history of disruption at that article better than I do. Do you think it appropriate to restore it to semi status immediately, or would it be better to wait and see? --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up--that article is such a mess-magnet! I'm fine leaving it unprotected for a little while to see if the users that keep adding fluff and material of questionable originality start up again. DMacks (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Just because you don't know Mark Britton, doesn't mean you go deleting him. He's famous to people in Oxfordshire.
So if you could not, that'd be brilliant. Thanks!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Markybritton (talk • contribs) 03:37, 17 September 2009
Damn, you're quick.
LOL, nice job on that ip-range insta-block :) - You're quick. :) You blocked him before I could even revert his first edit. Haha! :) --A3RO (mailbox)05:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello DMacks, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Nomenclator (nomenclature) has been removed. It was removed by DGG with the following edit summary '(much expandable. Key position in early medieval courts, among other places.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)
Note that while the content of the page was on another website, the uploader was very likely the copyright holder and it was thus not a valid CSD G2. However the content was not particularly appropriate for Wikipedia as I see it, so lets just leave it deleted and I will talk to the user, explain and discourage. Icewedge (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I could see it clearly speediable by several criteria by my own check (no-context was what first caught my eye), so I went with the nom without thinking about whether that was the appropriate one:/ DMacks (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Interesting general issue though...I haven't seen "uploader was very likely the copyright holder" as an admin rationale for not deleting unless uploader is the one that mentions that. DMacks (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
If the user that posted the article has the same name as the author of the article, that is pretty much an assertion that the account has copyright ownership of that article. Icewedge (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
You are clearly uninformed on with regards to the Adolf Hitler incident, as there actually was a medical professional with the name Dr. Adolf Hitler, Ph.D. He worked with the U.S. Olympic Team, and has no relation with the German dictator. Thank you for your precious time, good gentleman.
That's getting confusing as all heck:( I moved Talk:IDWTP back to his own usertalk and hist-merged it all there. That way he'll get alerts when users write to him on his talk-page about his mess. Thanks for helping him out! DMacks (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Work in Progress
The Brown Band page is a work in progress. I have no idea what you want me to do to make it more "objective". Look at any other Band's page and you will find a very similar format. Bgeilich (talk) 04:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)bgeilich
Comparing to how it was, you can see it used to follow the standards for every article by beginning with a factual statement about what it is and was written more dispassionately rather than with a promotional tone. Now it sounds more like a web-page and less like an encyclopedia article. That's a problem, and appears to be regressing rather than progressing compared to a few weeks ago. Make sure to work on getting a winning band page rather than aspiring to be just like a lesser or more Smurf-like band:) DMacks (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The edits you're reverting with it are not clear vandalism, so you shouldn't be using rollback to revert them. The IP is just ignorant of the rules. I'd suggest just using the undo function instead. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
His hop range looks large (maybe a major ISP), but I didn't look closer to see if there were narrow subranges to block. However, another action is being taken. DMacks (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
your image of the anomeric effect (THPOH-hyperconjugation.png) has the sigma* orbital of C1 pointed down towards oxygen where the bonding sigma orbital should be. if you still have this file on your computer, can you fix it and reupload it? thanks a bunch...and thanks for contributing to such an excellent article!
Glad you like that article! I think you are talking about the small grey region? While σ* is antibonding on C and does primarily point "away" from the atom to which the σ is bonded (the O), it does contain a small lobe in the bonding direction as well. The major part of the orbital in the illustration is the white region, which is indeed where I think you expect it to be. Let me know if that clarifies the diagram, if I misunderstood your concern, or if you want more information about this aspect of orbitals. DMacks (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thanks for helping me with that page move
Thanks for helping me with that page move, I do article moves so rarely I found a way to mess it up, but you stepped in and rescued me, thanks again. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
No, I agree with you. I was only assuming minimal good faith as he is an IP. The username he claims was his previous account does not exist. As his word cannot be trusted he may be worth watching. --Anthony.bradbury"talk"22:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Watchlisted the talk. It's weird, I couldn't find the auto- or range-block that started it all. Don't care, disruption is disruption. DMacks (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
{{subst:REVISIONUSER}} has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
{{subst:if|||
{{{message}}}
||subst=subst:}}
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Hey there DMacks, I think I've found something you might find interesting. You may remember that I brought up that HINSTAMAN (talk·contribs) had similar editing behaviors as Lil Lez (talk·contribs) who was socking at the time. Today, I came across another user: HINSTAMANA (talk·contribs) (there's an additional "a" in this username). That's pretty blatant socking, but because I haven't found any solid evidence to prove its Lil Lez, there I'm not sure if there's a malicious intent in this. I was wondering if you could give it a look, just in case I may have missed something. Regards. — ξxplicit06:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
By behavior, I'd say HINSTAMAN is probably HINSTAMANA. Similar favorite article topics. Like Lil Lez, HINSTAMANA likes to create less-than-useful redirects of some-titles. And I just spent 10 minutes cleaning up a cut'n'paste page-move. I'm at my sanity-limit for dealing with crap tonight, and neither one has edited lately, so I guess we're in wait-and-see mode. DMacks (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I totally missed that the more recent account hasn't edited in a few days. I hope it's not an account-hopping thing going on... I don't need to go through one of these again. — ξxplicit06:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
vandal
Hey DMacks, you just blocked Nervorexd--thanks! Good riddance. Anyway, there's a few remarks he made on User talk:Nevermorexd that are not kosher--you can set it so he can't edit his talk page, right? is this the kind of situation where that's appropriate? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This whole article is based on one writer's review of the book. The reviewer appears (according to his page) to be a clearly biased source and his view appears to contradict how the book author is portrayed (with numerous references) on the author's own page. The source states "Dr Prinz, like many other early sympathizers and allies of Nazism, did not realize where that movement (and modern antisemitism generally) was leading." Yet Joachim Prinz describes someone strongly against Nazism and how he viewed its rise with alarm ("Prinz was a vocal opponent to Nazism and spent his young years warning others about the dangers of National Socialism long before Adolf Hitler seized power in 1933." and contrasts this with those who did not see the coming danger). He saw some ideas as useful only in limited context at best. It's WP:UNDUE at best (but nearly deletable as lopsided attack-page) to give the impression that he was some sort of generally-pro Nazi. DMacks (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm adding more sources, wait just a minute. I'm pretty sure that it is notable though, it should probably be kept. ADM (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks DMacks! I'm feeling a bit worried that it might be protected again. I thought of an idea. I promise that this time, I will never do any more vandalism. How about if you change my block to a temporary one. Then after that, I will make construcive edits. This happened to me on a Windows 7 News forum. The main admin decided to un-ban me after a long ban. When I was back on, I never got perm banned again. So this can prove that I will be sensible on Wikipedia after a long block.--92.14.247.114 (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Food for thought
Hi DMacks. I hope this isn't too forward of me, but I think you've made a mistake and I'd urge you to reconsider.
I notice you just unprotected the Samlaptop85213 account belonging to a pernicious and completely remorseless vandal that calls himself Samlaptop. I disagree that this is a productive thing to do. The problem is that the Samlaptop vandal is not a reasonable editor. He has been given as many as 3 "second chances" in the past (see the logs 1 and 2), and he has used as many as 5 different sockpuppet accounts to dodge his blocks. Given the astounding number of second, third, and final chances he has been given, I think it is extremely unlikely that this vandal is going to reform himself. He had identified himself earlier on Wiki and he continues to identify himself as an autistic 14-year-old child, and despite my natural sympathies toward his condition, I believe his vandalistic editing patterns display classic signs of compulsive repetition. I don't think he necessarily means to be naughty, but it's become a pattern for him that he cannot break out of.
Within the last week alone he has succeeded in getting 4 alternate IPs banned (he operates from a dynamic address), and he has created 1 new sockpuppet.
I think the only way to properly deal with this problem is by providing a unified front and by stating to this user in clear and unequivocal terms that what he has done is not acceptable and that if we are ever to trust him again it will take a long period between his most recent act of vandalism and the breaks we are extending to him. As it stands, you've unprotected his account only 2 days after he conducted a bout of serious and persistent vandalism.
For a fuller view of the problems this user is creating, please review Wikipedia:Abuse reports/92.0.x.x to 92.15.x.x range, 78.144.x.x to 78.151.x.x ranges, etc.. This report better explains his identification of himself as an autistic child and demonstrates that these IPs all belong to Samlaptop.
Thanks for taking the time to review this matter. I hope you can still change it back to at least "semi-protected". -Thibbs (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeesh:( Tweaked his user block to include cover the talk-page (similar to semiprot). Nah, just full-prot...anything less would let his named-account socks work there. DMacks (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Now Dmacks? Why did you just protect my talk page again? I didn't get a chance to make one single unblock request. Change the duration of it to something long, e.g: 6 months or something. After thtat, I will make a final unblock request. I am not happy that is Indefinite!--92.14.247.114 (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the user gets my critique about the sources she put on the Ava 'N Zak article. She says that my assertion that most of the sources she puts on the page don't even have any connection the the subject was a "geometric fallacy" and an "inaccurate observation". Is there any way you could explain it to her better than I can about why the sources she chooses are not appropriate to assert the subject's notability? Best, TheLetterM (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I tried on her talk-page. One of the notability guidelines or essays or something mentions "notability is not inherited", which might be the core of her misunderstanding. DMacks (talk) 10:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
DMacks,
Thank you for your constructive criticism. I definitely need help getting my article publishable.
I am re-writing it but I need help to get it into Wikipedia format...
...Could you help me?
It's my first time as a Wikipedia contributor and honestly writing in wikitext threw me off.
I think I have become slightly more familiar with it but I definitely need help.
Thanks for correcting me of the sulphur thing. I had no idea that there was an international standard and that the standard was to use UK spelling for some things and American for others. Presumably this is to ensure fairness by making sure that both sides are equally confused. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I see you have deleted my contribution defining the word swuggle. Although you may disagree I was very serious in adding this entry. Please could you inform me of the reasons for its removal and/or advise me on how I can restore my work. I am new to the site so please forgive me If I have not followed the correct procedure. many thanks Jbak09 (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hell, I have no idea where to go with this to get in undone. He's one of the most important playwrights of the 20th century. It was a huge article which very much indicted his notability. I really don't understand this. freshacconci talktalk03:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I had mis-clicked on which page to kill, then checked the history immediately and thought it hadn't gone through. I guess database lag conspired to help me look like an idiot for that much longer...all fixed now. For future reference, anyone who can delete a page can undelete a page just as easily, all you have to do is bring it to someone's attention. DMacks (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!!!
Thank you for correcting the mistake I made on the page of Mónica Pastrana, I wasn't aware that all I needed to do was click on the "Move" tab at the top of the page. Once again thank you for your correction and thank you for also being so nice. --JordanLaDiva (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
AN/I you commented on
Hi, I noticed that (as often happens), this AN/I has been archived despite concerns by you and several (involved and non-involved) users. What should be done? Is waiting the best option? Thanks! --Cyclopiatalk12:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
sig
Thank you do much for devoting your time to help Wikipedia. I have a different way of giving people barnstars. I will offer to make you a custom signature. What do you say? Btilm22:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the thank-you and kind offer of a non-barnstar. I intentionally keep my .sig simple though (not just due to inertia:), so I'll pass on the gift. DMacks (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I saw you deleted this article. Could you please let me know who added the speedy tag to it? They marked it db-nonsense, but it clearly was not gibberish and I'd like to encourage them to be more careful with their tagging. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Teh tennisman. I killed it as a toss-up between test-page and no-context (I could understand the words, but there was no hint of what it was actually about) with just a remnant of the original nonsense tag. DMacks (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw you killed it with the right reasons, I just wanted to let the tagger know. I think we all know it met some part of CSD (db-g2 or db-a1) but it didn't meet db-g1 which was the problem with the tag. I am on a mission to improve the perception of CSD taggers by helping to ensure we all tag correctly. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Yup. Admins are (usually (I hope!)) smart enough to see through this attempt to hide past/recent warnings. If he's a problem, he'll still get escalated to severe warnings and then blocked if he persists. DMacks (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm late for appointment. File WP:AIV on the problematic editor(s) and/or WP:RFPP on the target pages. Once the problem is halted, easier to clean up without being deluged by ongoing/repeated problem. DMacks (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
Hi!! Please, I beg for your help!! I must do an University project and for that reason I've created an article in Spanish ("Aula de teatro de la UAM") and I have to translated it into English ("UAM's theatre club) but I'm desesperated because every single time I edit it, they deleted it because they saw is unimportant! But, actually is quite important for my mark :). Could you help me, please? Thank you very much!!--Tmj english (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, the standards for inclusion do not include "because someone needs it for school". This is an encyclopedia, not just a free webhost. Have a look at the notability inclusion policy compared to the CSD#A7 speedy deletion criteria. Does the school project really require "post a new page on Wikipeia"? If so, you will need to pick a different topic. If you can tell me the pages or Wikipedia account-names of your classmates, I can see if theirs also need help or maybe help you see why theirs are different from your attempts. DMacks (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Why are you deleting my articles?
Hello,
I am an art historian and researcher attempting to create a presence for contemporary artists on Wikipedia, and I am finding that you are deleting my work. Can you please explain why? I would love to change my articles, or hear your constructive criticism, so that perhaps you might let them remain on Wikipedia. Please let me know what I can do.
I would also say, based on the pattern of your edits, that you may have a conflict of interest, perhaps being affiliated with these artists or gallery...makes it seem like you are advertising for them by creating so many articles that are nothing more than stubs. Better to focus on one or maybe two major topics to write a larger article. Otherwise readers have to go hunting to many different pages to get many different bits of info than a single page about the gallery and all its major exhibits, for example. DMacks (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I had just wrote a massive essay thing about myself as im a solo artist and am getting noticed alot and getting alot of fans not trying to be vain or anything but was angry it was deleted that the fact is i just wrote the truth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indierocker101 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
It was indeed a massive essay, but it several editors noted (and I agree) that there was no evidence of notability, one of the minimum criteria for having an article here. WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC are some guidelines to help you see what kinds of topics merit an article and what to include in them. I can undelete it into your user-space sandbox to give you a few days to work on it if you think you will be able to get it into an acceptable form. DMacks (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Deletion question
You deleted the article I started to write on Edward Sullam Fellow of the American Institute of Architects who has won many awards for his orginal tropical architecture in Hawaii —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevesullam (talk • contribs) 23:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The entire contents of the article was "Edward Sullam F.A.I.A. was an architect who practiced for 50 years in Honolulu, Hawaii." That's not an article, that's a personnel listing with no overt claim of notability and sat around without any evidence of ongoing work for several hours, so it failed WP:CSD#A7. Now I think I know what an "F.A.I.A." is. Unfortunately generic "won many awards" statements without specifics or cites sounds a lot like, well, generic PR fluff. I still don't know if this person is notable. Are you planning to add more content with specific claims of notability? I can undelete it for further work. DMacks (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:ALUM, the specific consensus for all chemistry articles says to use "aluminium." And "These international standard spellings should be used in all chemistry-related articles on English Wikipedia, even if they conflict with the other national spelling varieties used in the article." That's the same standard you apparently didn't notice when you tried to change "caesium" to "cesium". DMacks (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Even with the best will in the world, no set of guidelines can cover every case. Some articles on Wikipedia have non-standard titles through consensus that this is the most commonly used name (in scientific circumstances) for the compound concerned, whatever IUPAC or the other rules suggest.
Compare the number of Google results for "aluminum borohydride" and "aluminium borohydride":
"aluminum borohydride" has 15,200 results on Google.
"aluminium borohydride" has 3640 results on Google.
Therefore, "aluminum borohydride" is five times more common than "aluminium borohydride", so it falls under the exception. ----J4\/4 <talk> 17:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
TJ is clearly wrong, I reverted(ec) you reverted:). WC I don't know anything about, but I did some cleanup of the new content. If no cite is supplied in a day or two, revert I guess. DMacks (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Looking more closely at TJ, the involved editors are a meat-puppet pile who are also involved in recreating an article recently deleted at AfD. May have to get a checkuser on this mess if it persists. Good catch! DMacks (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Yea I saw it. I have been battling with them for quite a few hours now. Its rather humorous the things people will do to get exposure.. Thanks - 4twenty42o (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Megarex
Hi, DMacks! I saw you voted for deleting Megarex. In fact, it had no references. I added some references I found about this band and its importance to Brazilian music and, then, I explained the reasons to keep the article in Wikipedia, according to band. Take a look there, please. I hope you change your opinion about that. Thank you!Victor Silveira (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
He's back on my watchlist. I only see one or two edits over a few days, if he picks up the pace please get to level3/4 warning and I or another admin will have no problem blocking for a long time. DMacks (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Looking for wiki contributors
Hello,
We have started a wiki site (related to personal credit) and in keeping with the wiki philosophy, we want to keep it open to everyone for contribution and edits. The problem is that we need contributors and I'm not sure about how to go about doing that. Is it ethical to solicit contributors to Wikipedia and other wiki sites? Or does that violate some term of use? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Apologies. Not trying to spam or violate any Wikipedia policies - just trying to learn the landscape. Thanks for your response. Gringoqueto (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia article cleanup
My last change in wikipedia was cleanup of the the article, I removed the portion which is not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Untilwhen1 (talk • contribs)
Ah, we're talking about Islam in India? First, please use edit-summaries whenever you make an edit to an article...large-scale changes "without explanation" are a common sign of vandalism. But I actually did read the changes, and here's what I see. The section appears to be about Muslim (or at least Muslim-ruler-led) persecution of Christians in India. That sounds like it's related to Islam in India, both for the specific acts and the more general "relations with other ethnic/religious groups" topic. You're welcome to start a discussion on Talk:Islam in India to get a wider consensus. Consider WP:BRD...you made a bold and undiscussed (that I can see anyway) change, it was reverted by two different editors, so now you are on your way toward discussing it to get other sets of eyes and opinions. DMacks (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Wikipedia:Section , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – imis☂01:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Huh? That "go here to discuss" goes to the article (apparently) being discussed, not its discussion. Could you clarify where the discussion itself is? DMacks (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. Sorry to bother you, I just need a little advice. I warned this user User talk:91.109.17.251 over removing references from an article without giving a reason why and they removed the warning I gave them on their talk page. I was just wondering do I place the warning again and then warn them about removing warnings or just warn them for removing the first warning (hope that's not too confusing)? - JuneGloom07 (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Users are allowed to remove warnings (see WP:BLANKING), but those removed warnings are still used by others when considering more severe future warnings or administrative blocking. DMacks (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
In response to the complaint against me by wifione on the admin board, you said "If there is no evidence of socking given or any followup action for it, it's a pretty clear case of harassment IMO". I have responded there. I have raised SPIs before, giving evidence and have also alerted one of the admins in charge of checkuser about it. I have also posted on the talk page similarities with past attacks and expressed my concerns about it. Just wanted you to know it's not a case of me just calling him a sock without any other follow-up. I have a more detailed response at the notice board. Thanks. Oh and FWIW, I agree with you that a perma-full-prot seems like the best option for the page. Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I really don't want to start the debate here. I have put my responses in the admin noticeboard. Makrand's "one" SPI against me has already been shown in my admin noticeboard complaint. There is no other spi he ever raised. He has been taken to wikiquette twice by me in the past in good faith, one link of which is shown in my complaint. I have added more points to the complaint post his reply. I noticed that he has taken an action that threatens to deliberately expose me as a "full time IIPM employee", irrespective of whether I am or am not. I have posted the link on the noticeboard complaint too. If this doesn't call for an immediate block of his account, what does? I'll await your reply on the noticeboard Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk09:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Just for information DMacks, I have raised a clear attempted outing case against user Makrandjoshi now and have requested for an immediate block on his user id. I am also writing to oversight right now for expunging certain details from Wikipedia talk pages. I await your immediate action Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk09:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi MDacks, you might like to have a look at Aegean civilizations and undo an edit. I know I could do it myself, but as far as I understand did you warn the IP who did the changes not to do any vandalism again. greetings --85.127.116.45 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC).
Thanks for the semi. I'll go throught the history and fix any mistakes I made in reversion. I couldn't leave the article long enough to get to RPP. Apologies for the mess I may have made. Regards Tiderolls03:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
No problemo! I reverted back to December 7 I think, but I don't know enough of the topic to look further back or if I revived something bad. I also handed out a wave of few-day IP blocks and indef user blocks, so we should get some peace from vandals who created accounts just for this purpose too. Will watchlist for a while and see. Thanks for working on it! DMacks (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm also in the dark about the subject. I've found their website and hope to gain the basics of membership, releases, etc. I won't (hopefully) break anything that can't be fixed. I hate leaving my HG cocoon :-\ Tiderolls03:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The site I found may not be reliable, so I kept my changes to one name. I have posted on the article talk inviting participation and review. Google revealed very little on the band...I'm surprised the band passes notability (there is a VH1 video so that counts for something). Anyway, that's it for my contribution on the article. Thanks again for your help. See ya 'round Tiderolls04:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
God and Country was the traditional name for the Boy Scouts' religious emblem of faith, in use for at least 40 years, it's ridiculous that it has to share space with a Touched by an Angel episode Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
But it's a fact that it is also the name of an episode of very popular present-day TV program. That's exactly why we have WP:DISAMBIG: to help readers find what they want even if they don't know there is any other meaning, when "what they want" isn't necessarily "what we think they want". DMacks (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
... for reverting my edits (on magnetic moment and angular momentum). And very sorry to have put you to the trouble. I wished to prove a point to my students who had rather too strong a view that "wikipedia can't be trusted". Reverted within 8 and 1 minutes. Thank you again. You have helped make some youngsters wiser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.50.222 (talk)
I am the author of the Rey Fresco page. I would like to know what the issue was regarding deleting the page for this band. They are a notable band with a national release distributed by a major label and they received national press, which are both guidelines for having a notable entry. I plan to repost this article. Chrissypan (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The wikipedia article was a word-for-word copy of that web site page, and that web site does not explicitly release its content for reuse. That is the very definition of copyright infringement. DMacks (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The template specifically tells you that you are not allowed to remove the tag. Instead, it tells you how to voice your opinion. DMacks (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
No. You can make that request on the AfD page, but you do not have the right to disrupt the AfD process once it has begun. DMacks (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I am the sole creator, other people might have corrected spelling etc. --Linnea78 (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)G7. Author requests deletion,
"if requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page was added by its author. (For redirects created as a result of a pagemove, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages prior to the move.) If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page or category page, this can be taken as a deletion request."
I declined the request. There are claims that the article is notable enough to keep, so the speedy-deletion would be premature if they are right. DMacks (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
This is ridiculous... So if it is not notable as you claim, surely it can be removed?! Bottom line is, I want it removed whether it is notable or not I don't see Wikipedia any longer as a reliable source for information. I have the right to edit or ask for removal.--Linnea78 (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I never claimed it was not notable. You made your request, and I declined it because someone else said it was notable. I didn't say it was notable either, the AfD has pro and con, so either it is notable or it will be deleted in a few days. I do see non-trivial contributions by other editors that suggest they think it is notable. You obviously feel it does not belong, you want it deleted, but others think it does belong and is viable content. I am granting them the chance to prove that it is a viable topic--their proof would overcome your desire to remove it. DMacks (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Capillary perpetual motion
you removed the exception. are you nuts ? pupils videos are no evidence at all, but no negative pressure inside a capillary is enough to built a perpetual motion. if you have two identical floats, and one is swimming higher and both are in the same fluid, than you have a perpetuum motion, except you are nuts. you have to do this experiment suddenly. put only a capillary over a float and see what happens before you remove me again. o k !
bw
Susanne
There is no such thing as "negative pressure". Again, there is no evidence this is perpetual motion according to the scientific meaning. It may continue "for a long time", but it either takes energy to get it started and/or it eventually stops. DMacks (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
IPs can only be blocked for increasingly long times, not permanently. I'll keep an eye on it, but not worth blocking this one just for one edit. If you see vandalism re-occur in these situations, place an appropriate WP:WARN on the talk-page so other admins can help track the problems too. DMacks (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Dian Fossey
DMacks, the alleged Wall Street Article doesn't exist plus it's a lie.
PLEASE read the last chapter of Farley Mowat's biography "Woman in the Mist" and You'll see that there's no proof of allegation that Dian was an alcoholic or racist (Dian spoke out strongly against Apartheid on her lecture tour in South Africa, see Mowat's book). These allegations are lies as even Rosamond Carr in her book "Land of a Thousand Hills says" —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaHutton (talk • contribs) 20:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppets appearing
Hi DMacks. There are more IP addresses being used as sockpuppets for the blocked User:HAl. Articles: Windows Mobile (dif) and HTC HD2 (dif). I noticed you reverted him on the Windows Mobile article yesterday, and a different admin blocked his IP, but he just came back with another IP and reverted your revert. The IPs seem to all come from a company that is a partner with Microsoft (hence the re-editing of Microsoft related articles to look more positive). Not sure what can be done. Thanks, --Lester20:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Wikipedia:Section , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – imis☂ 01:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Nice work! ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 21:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)