User talk:DMacks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] KACE (AM)

A tag has been placed on KACE (AM), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Devin2462 15:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC) on the User Talk page of the author.

[edit] Police records

I don't know of any publication that could validate the facts. Would police records work? He DID steal the money. Everyone in the industry knows. It's a famous story.

The story is quite entertaining actually: Wyrgatsch was, at the time, a methamphetamine addict. One night, he decided to take $50,000.00 USD in cash that had been payment from a Japanese distribution company, and gamble it in Las Vegas. At the time, he was also dating a nude dancer. She accompanied him to Las Vegas. Needless to say, the money was all lost.

The gun battle took place in the Hollywood Hills, when Erik was neighbours with Sofia Coppola. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eva Brown (talk • contribs) 07:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Got it

On Wikipedia, BLP may refer to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, an official policy.

Can you help out? I am new to Wiki & the page I am working on needs expert help. I have facts, I need a wiki-pro to help with validating the facts. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eva Brown (talk • contribs) 07:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What we need is some specific citations from reliable sources to support the facts. For example, a bibliographic citation to a newspaper article about each item that is marked [citation needed]. I don't know anything about this company or its product lines myself. DMacks (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Check out the website. You probably would actually like the product! it's www.fuct.com The company has been around forever. It's worth looking into. More so if you are very detail-oriented, I think you would enjoy uncovering information about this controversial brand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eva Brown (talk • contribs) 07:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP

Mack, what is the BLP? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eva Brown (talk • contribs) 07:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"BLP" is Wikipedia's Biography of living persons policy. The Fuct page makes some accusations against a person without providing any evidence or citation to support them. DMacks (talk) 07:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


Right, so I understand the need for citations. What is the statute of limitations to find the appropriate material? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eva Brown (talk • contribs) 07:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What ho, Mr Macks!

Just one rhodite saying g'day to another. Funny finding you here... Ossipewsk 01:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you drop me a line at rfitz cat accc dog gov dog au? Ossipewsk 00:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks like this talk page has more traffic than rhod nowadays... Motti 21:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC) (the rhodite known as Teh)
Sad, that:( DMacks (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Regarding the copyvio

Good catch, I missed it.  :) Navou talk 10:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oak creek high school

What's up with the "oak creek high school" page, which appears to be an AfD notice on a page that didn't exist about a page that doesn't exist? DMacks 18:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's all in the timing....looks like the page was deleted just as I was adding the tag....Sorry for the extra work Shoessss 18:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] language wiki's


i need to put them on the relevant wiki's i thought the system would automatically integrate them once i uploaded them. Okay, i will have to do it manually (i am new to this) thanks for your help, do you have any further suggestions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kellyanne.tomlinson (talk • contribs) 11:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Deletion of Ion pump (physics)

The first version in the history is a copyvio. further more they wayback machine confirms that it was us that coppied from them.Geni 08:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] yeh

plo Filefire 16:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amino acid

Thanks for the edits, a great improvement. If I work on the biochemistry here, and you polish up the organic chemistry we should be able to get this up to GA easily, or A-class/FA with a bit more work. Thanks again. TimVickers 19:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User warnings have been updated

Heya, take a quick look at WP:UTM. Looks like things like {{test4}} have been deprecated. --Brad Beattie (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Olefin metathesis DOI

As you see, I fixed that. Thanks for formatting it - I went to format it and got an edit conflict, as you beat me to it! I wish we had some software that would make uploading these refs easier! Thanks for spotting my mistake. Walkerma 22:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acetone Peroxide

Your wording is a bit vague for an encyclopedia.

"Many people have been killed or permanently injured by accidents with acetone peroxide." while true it doesn't provide any numbers. If using this, at least provide a referance to the number of accidents per year, or something similar.

"It is widely used by people who want to make homemade explosives because of its low cost and ease of manufacture. " What is used? More accurate would be, "It is often made by those without access to less dangerous explosives due to the ease with which... (fill in the rest)." Yes it's a bit wordy, but using inaccurate language is worse than being wordy.

"They may be unaware of its extreme sensitivity; or they make it anyway because it is cheap and can be made in a refrigerator."

Where does the refrigerator play into this? All it does is emphasize how easy the synthesis is. A more accurate wording would be; "...and can be made with household materials."

Making something easier to read is admerable. However, doing so at the cost of accuracy is not. Can you think of a comprimise between wordy/accurate and an easy read? Foolishben 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. Unfortunatly I tend to write in a style that can be difficult to read. What do you think of this? Without any studies I have had to avoid any words that imply a low, high, or moderate frequency of accidents. If you can find one that would be great.

"Due to the cost and ease with which the precursors can be obtained; It is commonly manufactured by those without the resources needed to manufacture or buy more sophisticated explosives. When the reaction is carried out without proper equipment the risk of an accident is significant."Foolishben 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Instant Tax Service userpage

Zapped as g11 advertising. Thanks, NawlinWiki 20:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Summaries

Hey man, I know this sounds really strange, but I thought the BrainGate thing was the only change I made. Maybe I accidently reverted to an old edit as well. Sorry about the confusion, and feel free to revert my edit (except for the BrainGate thing). Chaz! 19:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] janejellyroll

Thanks for tagging that attack page for speedy deletion.  :) janejellyroll 06:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "popups" tool

Thanks, I hadn't noticed. andy 09:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improving unbioctium article

I seen that you didn't delete unbioctium article to re-direct page, that's good. Please do not delete unbioctium article and redirecting it as you did before. It should be OK if I create element articles, it is not stupid thing to do compared to creating redirecting hypothetical element names. Cosmium 17:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Touro synagogue

Howdy DMacks. Can you cite a repurposed temple that we need to consider here, or are you erring on the side of possibility? I believe the Touro synagogue's own language in their publications (they claim to be the oldest) is sufficient, as does the National Park Service. In fact, to include a disclaimer where you are unsure one exists has the opposite effect of suggesting one or more older former temples exist. I tempted to follow Strunk & White and say more with less here. And, if you do know of older ones (I don't) it would be appropriate to mention it/them, where they are located etc. Thanks for the consideration. CApitol3 20:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reform Judaism

Hi! I agree that your removal of the link from the article was appropriate because the web site involved appears to be a non-notable personal website that simply doesn't meet the criteria for external links in WP:RS. The link's label also appeared to be misleading, although that could be fixed. However, I don't believe a link should be deleted simply because it provides criticism from a different theological viewpoint. The WP:NPOV policy permits editors to add notable, reliably-sourced, and honestly labeled critical viewpoints to an article, including viewpoints that share the deleted link's take on things. It's been done on a number of other Judaism-related articles. See for example Criticism of Conservative Judaism and Modern Orthodox Judaism#Criticism. --Shirahadasha 23:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Got your note. No problem!! Best, --Shirahadasha 02:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guess Chat

I have to ask and answer many things. This is Neru. I have simply made a page to my self and I have done nothing wrong but you state my page will be deleted? Why is this?

[edit] Metabolism FAC

Hi there, DMacks. If you had any comments or suggestions on this article, they would be very welcome. The nomination page is here. Thanks! TimVickers 04:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the careful review, I hope I've managed to cover all your comments. TimVickers 22:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, it has been promoted. Thanks again. TimVickers 15:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Penn

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to University of Pennsylvania, you will be blocked from editing. 130.91.93.43 22:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't know what's wrong with 130.91.93.43, but I've reverted their change and left them a note. Ar-wiki 22:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trost ligand

I noticed the changes you made to Trost ligand. I'm curious what browser/OS you are using. After my edits, the layout worked well on the computer I'm using now (IE 6/ Windows 2000). The IUPAC name and SMILES fields were wrapped and the chembox was not unusually wide. After your edits, there is now a large whitespace in the middle of the article. On another computer I use (Safari/ Mac OS X), I have noticed that many of the chemboxes show up way too wide. I wonder if there is any way to sort out the disparate appearances of the chembox or find some kind of formatting compromise. What do you think? --Ed (Edgar181) 14:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I was solving two semi-related layout problems here:
  1. I first noticed the wide infobox while using Firefox1.5 built with an X11 GUI on OS X, just checked and the (old form of the page) is also wide with Firefox2 on Windows XP. Looks like they don't break lines at anything except whitespace, which made wide text-boxes. I solved that by adding carriage-returns into the name and SMILES strings. Could just as well use a "space" character I think, not sure why I picked "return" instead.
  2. Also because breaking doesn't occur within text (even at hyphens), the text description of the naphthyl ligand was a problem. The text "(S,S)-DACH-naphthyl Trost ligand is" was placed left of the infobox, but the name (the next "word" in that sentence) was too long to fix next to the infobox, so it went below it. I forced a full-width break before the paragraph, so the huge white gap wasn't in the middle of the paragraph.
I switched to simple whitespaces to allow automatic line-breaks. Looks okay to me now, no lines are too long to fit where they need to, so no huge white gaps. Wonder if there's a stylesheet or other special character that is an explicitly breakable hyphen. DMacks 17:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The layout looks fine to me now. The spaces instead of line breaks work well. I'm surprised that some browsers don't create a new line when necessary for hyphens. I've encountered this kind of thing a few times before, seeing an edit summary like "reducing whitespace" on an edit that introduces large amounts of whitespace on my system. But I guess that's just inevitable (unless we turn over all control of our computers to Bill Gates). --Ed (Edgar181) 18:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I was directed here by DMacks. I don't really have a solution, just the same gripe here. Perhaps we should bring it to wikichem? Maybe someone knows a trick we don't. I think the best solution would be to have breaking hyphens or breaking optional hyphens. But I don't really see how wikipedia can fix the problem without the browsers doing it. --Rifleman 82 17:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University of Wales a federation

While the anonymous edit you removed was neither clearly written nor clearly pertinent, and probably merited undoing, the fact is that the University of Wales was founded as a federation of three preexisting colleges (Aberystwyth, Bangor and Cardiff). So the answer to your (what federation? what "group" is a single university?) is The University of Wales, apparently. A group of constituent, federated colleges. This is made quite clear in the article on the University of Wales. How it pertains to the Ivy League I'm not at all sure, thouĝ. --Haruo 11:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A(n) eutectic

Interesting. The full-size OED agrees with "a", and it was the one I was taught (UK metallurgy degree). And yet "an eutectic" appears to be a growing usage even on the academic circuit: Google Scholar gives 17,900 hits for "a eutetic" and 5,380 for "an eutectic". There's a similar growing use of "an euphemism" 15:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Levin

I have replaced the sentence fragment referring to how Rob Levin's status as the sole paid employee of the PDPC aroused suspicion...please see my explanation on its talk page. Your Beloved Uncle Jimbob 20:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copper aspirinate

Thanks for adding the stick model. Looks great!--Bfesser 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aerospace deletions

I deleted the user page clones as well under CSD G4. Thanks for the heads up. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anabolic steroids FAC

I changed the article to fit your objections. Please cross out your objections to the FAC and change your vote if you want.Wikidudeman (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please change your vote. I changed everything you brought up and fixed the article accordingly.Wikidudeman (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Dmacks, Check out the changes I made and tell me what you think. Scroll down to the bottom of the FAC page to talk about it. I posted there. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You should cross out what I have changed so far and also change your vote if you have no further objections. You should do it before the admins archive it as a failure.Wikidudeman (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm awarding you The Barnstar of Diligence

The Barnstar of Diligence
I'm awarding you The Barnstar of Diligence for your precise scrutiny in helping to improve the Anabolic steroid article so that it may quickly become a featured article. Focusing on small grammatical and style aspects that might usually go overlooked is very important to help improve Wikipedia and make it more user-friendly for it's readers. Wikidudeman (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you...

For your kind comments at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology and Werner Erhard - Even some of our science articles aren't this well cited! Reads like a factual account and essentially all statements are referenced. WP:NPOV doesn't mean a balanced point-counterpoint nor does it require that an overwhelming amount of factual material that happens to point in one direction be excluded - I worked hard on sourcing that article and your acknowledgement of this is most appreciated. Thank you. Smee 12:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Jason Jeffries-Glasgow

Jason Jeffries-Glasgow is a speedy, in my opionion. If you havent already, you can review the Speedy Deletion criteria, as that would have been more apropreate for this page. ffm ✎talk 21:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gamey

I created this article as it was on the list of requested articles. As it was filed under food, I only included the definitions that fit the criteria, but there are others. I don't object to it being deleted, but will it then be removed from the requested article list? If not, we could go round in circles... Mthastings25 12:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes some things just can't be made into viable Wikipedia articles despite someone requesting a page about it. My concern wasn't just that it looks like a mere dictionary definition at this time but that I couldn't imagine anything encyclopediac surrounding this meaning that would lead to a viable page...see WP:DICDEF. The Wiktionary entry for this term does not explicitly cover the food-texture meaning, so I'd adjusted the tag from "just delete from Wikipedia" to "migrate info to Wiktionary". The Wikipedia:Requested articles list is just an ideas whiteboard, so I assume you can remove things from it when they are not feasible. DMacks 14:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments you made!!

The comments you made on my page were wrong and unnecessary! I never made changes/revisions to the pages you listed ever on Wikipedia. I ask you to remove the comments ASAP! Thank You. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.22.3 (talk)

Request rejected, the vandalism warning is valid based on substantial evidence of vandalism. DMacks 00:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thriller

I have put Thriller (disambiguation) up for WP:RM to Thriller. Simply south 22:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I was so busy with the Marco Casagrande astroturfing and meatpuppetry that I never saw the vandalism. he did it three times, so maybe I should bump it up a little bit. :) DarkAudit 18:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compliance Training

Thanks for your positive contribution to Compliance Training -- it will serve as a model to me in the future as to how to deal with stuff like this, and makes me think I should have a better command of tags, how and when to use them, which I now intend to get. Your way is the way that articles like this will end up becoming better, not just removed. Much obliged! Accounting4Taste 18:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Providence, Rhode Island

Editor, I've noticed your contributions to the Providence, Rhode Island article. I've just nominated it for Featured Article status.--Loodog 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

FA page is here. Any feedback and assistance you have to offer would be greatly appreciated.--Loodog 00:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Testosterone and caffeine

You made an edit inserting extra information from those references. If it is really true that they tested testosterone and not DHT, their research doesn't make much sense, because it is DHT, not testosterone, that has a major effect on hair follicles, so I deleted that entire section for now: [1]. Maybe it's just a case of rephrasing it to make it clear that the effect on tt carried through to dht (which is made from tt) and hence affected the hair follicles. But I haven't read the studies. It seems you have. I do know, thought, that dht is the player, not tt. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Testosterone is a precursor to the "active" DHT (this metabolic step happens in or near the folicle if I remember correctly). However, the cited study actually tested testosterone itself not DHT. As usual, popular press finds a hugely interesting potential application that is a few orders of magnitude removed from the actual scientific result. DMacks 17:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict] I understand the precursor business. However, if you read the androgenetic alopecia article, you'll find that the hair follicle receptors are specific to DHT. Tt will have a very low rate of reaction with those receptors. You'd have to really whack tt over the head hard to see any effect in follicles. Maybe this is what the study investigated, but you don't really want to knock out tt in an otherwise healthy male. Unless you're unhappy with the sex you are, in which case, hormone therapy will work wonders for your hair. So while the research concerns caffeine, it would seem to be rather useless w.r.t. alopecia, and one might question its notability. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Based on your second edit, it seems we agree. :) Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] request for comment

I've nominated New Ivy League for deletion, and I thought you'd like to participate in the discussion. Cornell Rockey 04:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 12 June 2007

Quote:

Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as:

   * it is relevant to their notability;
   * it is not contentious;
   * it is not unduly self-serving;
   * it does not involve claims about third parties;
   * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
   * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

I definitely fulfill all of those things, for:

  • What I say about Michael Campbell, Mahalalel, is about me.
  • I am definitely not at all contentious.
  • What I write is not unduly self-serving.
  • What I write does not involve claims of third parties.
  • What I write does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
  • There is no reasonable doubt as to who writes what I write.

Nowhere does Wikipedia say that it cannot be used for self-publishing; with regard to that Wikipedia says only that the writing not be original work, be verifiable, and conform to a neutral point of view. I meet all of those criteria also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcampbell422 (talk • contribs).

That would all be fine on a page about you, i.e., User:Mcampbell422. However, "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" (WP:OR). DMacks 14:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ivy Bands list

There is precedent for a template for college marching bands ( Template:Big Ten Marching Bands ) so I don't see why not. I have not a clue how to do it, but if you know how, go for it. Would you call it Ivy Scramble Bands (7 are, 1 isn't) or Ivy Marching bands or...? Cornell Rockey 21:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. Does [Category:Ivy League] belong with the template too? Cornell Rockey 21:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Color wise, I've glanced through WP:MOS and can't see that there is any reason we can't color the bar at the top of the template (and the other Ivy templates: football and basketball venues) some shade of green. What do you think? 13:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
That green would be fine, and you'd change all the text in the bar to white then? I like this one too, personally > Forest green ( 228b22 ). Which ever you prefer, I'm game with; but I'm glad we agree all should match. Cornell Rockey 14:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jarrod Arbuckle

This is clearly an attack page; it has been from the first edit. I nominated it for speedy deletion (WP:CSD#G10). ~EnviroboyTalkContribs - 05:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. Well, whatever. Let the admins deal with it :). ~EnviroboyTalkContribs - 05:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anomer

I saw your last edit of anomer. [2] While it is true that the due to the anomeric effect the α-anomer is generally more stable than the β-anomer, in the case of glucose, which is the one shown in the figure, it is actually the β-anomer which is more stable. That must be the reason for the anonymous change. I think the statement should be clarified. --Itub 06:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

So we spend a lot of time explaining why an axial heteroatom is the more stable one adjacent to an endocyclic heteroatom (a general acetal/halohydrin/etc case), but now it's actually the equitorial that's more stable? What's the structural difference that matters here between "glucose-like" vs "the general case"? Or are we having α/β terminoligy issues? DMacks 15:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
It's complicated... the anomeric effect exists for glucose, but it is not strong enough, so it only reduces the "normal" preference towards the equatorial conformation (the ratio of α:β 36:64 given in the glucose article is correct). The ratio that one would expect for cyclohexanol is 11:89, which may not seem like a huge difference, but corresponds to about 0.9 kcal/mol. The case of sugars is also complicated because of hydrogen bonding and solvent effects, which is why usually simpler systems are chosen to study the anomeric effect. I recommend you the review by Juaristi [3]; if you don't have access send me an email and I'll send you the PDF. The case of glucose is discussed briefly in pages 5025-5026. --Itub 15:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey...

...I recognize your name from rec.humor.oracle.d, don't I? DS 02:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You probably do, but I've been hassling him about that part of his history for months and he's only just now got around to saying hello  :-( --Ossipewsk 03:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Look, I may be many things--a wiki denizen, a RHODite, lame and lazy--but I'm not lame and lazy! Oh crap, wait a minute... DMacks 04:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baltimore article

DMack, your reversion of my edit on the Baltimore article was inappropriate. Your assertion that graffiti and television do not constitute a reliable source is a red herring, and a tad condescending. I did not post a link to the graffito or to the television show; I posted a link to an article which in turn made reference to the graffito and the television show. Here is that link again: http://www.citypaper.com/special/story.asp?id=11846

Citypaper is a media outlet that serves as a reference for many assertions in Wikipedia articles— including elsewhere in the Baltimore article under discussion. Here are two additional sources that allude to the simple proposition that “Bodymore” is a slang term occasionally invoked to refer to Baltimore: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=bodymore_murdaland http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bodymore

The observation that a television show has played some role in popularizing this usage, and that it has done so by popularizing an image possibly created illegally by an anonymous individual with a spray-paint canister, is not germane to the question of whether this usage has gained prominence in the lexicon, nor does it somehow contradict the authority of other sources which meet Wikipedia’s reliability guidelines.

Look at the article posted as a reference for the assertion that “Charm City” is a Baltimore nickname: http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/summary9/ It indicates that the term was generated through an ad campaign that included the distribution of charm bracelets at the Baltimore visitors’ center. Is an ad campaign a reliable source? Of course not. But the article about the ad campaign is.

I actually devoted a significant amount of time to figuring out how to make that edit and provide citation in the particular manner required by that box in that article. I didn’t do it because I have anything to prove; I did it because I happened upon an instance in a Wikipedia article where there appeared to be an information gap that I was in a position to fill. I don’t edit Wikipedia often, but when I do it’s usually something like that or a simple grammar or punctuation issue. I see that you’ve been editing consistently for at least the last year and a half, and I commend you. But I wonder how much of your activity has simply been policing recent edits and reverting them for dubious reasons.Brrryan 05:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Covalent Technologies

I think its almost a conflict of interest...

Reedy Boy 20:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Almost"? :) I mentioned COI in my level4 warning to him. DMacks 20:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Well its gone. If they complain, im blocking them ;) Reedy Boy 20:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Marching band

You're Invited!! Based on your Wikipedia contributions, you may want to consider joining WikiProject Marching band. More information can be found on the project page. We hope you'll join us!


.

--Littledrummrboy 23:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elena Cheung listed at AFD

The prod tag was removed from this article, so I have moved it to AFD. Naconkantari 06:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Message To the Mack

Dear Mr. Mack, I admit to nothing. The statement about Belleville is true. Have you been there? I visited it for art on the square. My first impression, and last, was that belleville is an artless void. The only people there were old rich people, the young crowd doesn't care, THEIR CULTURELESS! The square is a circle by the way, and it should be titled "art on the circle". I have no comments about the page on the middle school, however I would like to comment on your remark about experimenting in the sandbox. I will experiment with yer mom later tonight....oh yeah! She's gonna holler like a holler monkey, 'cause she likes it that way. Oh yeah, you wanna hang out some time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr dell (talk • contribs).

[edit] This is not polite to delete some sentences about Red Army crimes

I've just started the article about Red army crimes in Ukraina and U are in a great hurry to delete it. Why?

Ttturbo 06:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As per wikipedia policy, articles need reliable sources. This is especially true when the topic is controversial. As per wikipedia guidelines, articles need to be written objectively. I am "in a great hurry" to avoid having articles that are highly biased unless there are strong sources that support such a bias being warranted. DMacks 06:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
So please help to improove sources. Do U suppose the article creation by community is process or the moment act?. I've seen number 100 000 000 of comunism victims.

Ttturbo 07:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sailor Castor

I think Sailor Castor is an rpg character too, but I'm not sure. That's why I decided to get rid of the speedy and put up a prod. Hope that was the right course of action. -WarthogDemon 03:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems good to me! DMacks 03:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
My highly-advanced 500-horsepowered brain had the most amazing solution: go to google and type "Sailor Moon" AND "Sailor Castor!" It received 8 google hits. Probably is an rpg character. (I'm so slow tonight. Seriously.) Anyway, since we've established it's an rpg character, should I change things back to a speedy? -WarthogDemon 03:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The Sailor Moon thing is probably what spawned the rpg. Could AfD it and get consensus that it's non-notable, but I usually give newbie editors a chance to try to fix their pages (even if ultimately impossible to do). He put a note on the talk page that it's a new character too, so probably hopeless. DMacks 03:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Then I'll just sit back and watch what happens. I don't want to go down hard on him. -WarthogDemon 03:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 53rd & 6th

Deletion of 53rd and 6th. I dont understand why my article was deleted, i think you are judging it unfairly because ti is just a food stand, but if you have ever been there for even bothered to take a look at the website as a reference, you will realize that its notoriety is greater than that of a typical food stand.

-Bingbingma

I didn't judge the food stand at all (nor the article for that matter), I merely alerted you that someone else had tagged the article for deletion. However, if I recall, the page provided no reliable sources supporting its claims of notability, which means the page was indeed not viable for Wikipedia. When I lived in New York, I loved the food trucks, and I'd still be happy to have pages about notable ones, provided some reliable sources were found. DMacks 18:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] standard for speedy

I declined to delete Computer Doctor of Lake City as non-notable, for I think that according to WP:CSD the standard for speedy as A7 non-notable is not showing the ability to meet WP:N, but just the assertion of notability or importance (which I interpret as any good faith assertion, not "I am the king of the world." --please check there--and if you have any doubts, ask at the talk page there. However, the article certainly does fall under the criterion for G11, commercial or non-commercial spam, and I changed the speedy tag to that. Since I placed the tag, i will let some other admin delete it.DGG (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excuse me!!

I wasn't vandalizing Tortilla..As a Latino I was fixing the wrongs and imperfections that White American make about the Totillia..So please don't give me BS and say I'm vandalizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.64.242 (talk)

You removed content from lots of pages without explaining why. The content was reasonable even if not perfect or complete. DMacks 23:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Your removal of content from burrito wasnt acceptable, anon, as burritos are as much an American concept as anything else. Please sign into an account, that would be helpful. Your edits to tortilla were fine, IMHO, SqueakBox 23:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excuse me

the Nick helping wikipedia be protected does show a purpose and I am shocked that you would put that for deltion look at my articles I have sir and why don't you e-mail me. Thank you user:Nick37

[edit] HEY JERK

Hey buddy i dont appreciate you going around vandalising peoples user pages i dont why do you?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo III (talk • contribs)

[edit] Ayia napa sea monster

I agree with you that it probably is nonsense, & certainly needs to be documented, but there is no provision to speedy for being a non notable legend, just the categories in WP:CSD A7. So I changed it to a prod. If it's deprodded without sources being provided, just send it to AfD. DGG (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a quick thanks

Just wanted to say, thanks for your quick work to resolve the dispute at PostSecret; hopefully this brings a painless close to what appears to have been a somewhat long-standing argument. In the grand scheme of things, it's probably not an argument for the history books, but I think it's important to recognize that sort of open, fair, pragmatic attitude and thinking. On a slightly different note, have you ever considered running for adminship? – Luna Santin (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chemistry viewpoint?

Hi there, I've got the article Oxidative phosphorylation up as a featured article candidate at the moment, any chance you could look it over and check the chemistry? Any other comments or suggestions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oxidative phosphorylation would also be very welcome. All the best Tim Vickers 18:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your improvements. Tim Vickers 22:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kaplan education

I see you commented on User:Teammazu's talk page. I have made a comment about some of these articles at the COI Noticeboard. [4]. I consider that many of them are hopelessly non-encyclopedic and have nominated some for speedies. DGG (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'll race you to the AfD :)

  • Grin*. "Oooh, me first!". Ohwaitwhoops. --Bfigura (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baltimore Hebrew Congregation

Thank you for noticing the tone issues at Baltimore Hebrew Congregation. While working on Category:Synagogues in the United States, I noticed the many tags and improved the article. I thought you may want to give it another look. gidonb 15:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Towson Bypass article

You questioned that the description of Towson Bypass is confusing, and wondered if it crossed York Road twice. The answer is, it sure does. It is a semicircular route. Look it up on Mapquest or Google Maps (or something similar) and see for yourself. Sebwite 19:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I drive it several times a week:) My point is that the description in the article is confusing ("After passing York Road, the name of the Towson Bypass changes to Burke Avenue") given this semicircular/two-crossings route. DMacks 20:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KACE (Company)

In current form this article warrants a CSD on grounds of advertising. A1octopus 17:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I'd certainly support its removal. See my comment on Talk:KACE. DMacks 17:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erowid

Hi DMacks

I notice there are quite a lot of citations to erowid, especially in the area of narcotics and illicit drugs. I do agree that WP is not censored, but I wonder if erowid really is considered a reliable source. --Rifleman 82 03:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Good question! Best I can tell, it is reliable for some things and not others. Facts about science seem good and pages are often cited to primary/secondary sources but experiences and related anecdotal evidence is "anyone can submit". I just checked the four pages cited by Caffeine, found that that the caffeine-content ref cites specific other often-reliable-looking sources for each value, the overdose page contains a list of clinical/scientific reports, the effects page cites many RS as well but also contains some summary-style info that isn't directly cited, and the yerba page is contains a few cites and also some analysis. So first three look good. Fourth's info could probably be incorporated more directly and its cites imported to the wikipedia article itself, but not sure it's worth the effort. Much of its analysis and cites are already covered (and re-covered and reiterated again and again) on Talk:Caffeine…nice to be able to point to someone else's writing about it on a page that contains cites (it seems more analytical rather than specific facts with specific cites) instead of citing our own talk page. DMacks 06:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Not specific to caffeine, but there are certain chemistry pages which cite this for techniques and synthetic routes. I've read Erowid's articles and they do seem to make sense, but I really think it's a bad idea to cite a clandestine chemistry website for a serious encyclopedia. --Rifleman 82 06:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it really has to be case-by-case. I've intentionally added links to our Erowid page in the refs so that readers can decide the quality of that ref. And I'd only feel comfortable using it as a ref if a page we cited from it made sense and cited other WP:RS…wouldn't take it as gospel truth (or even "WP is about verifiability not truth" reference) without corroboration or other support. I only used caffeine as example because I happened to have been editing its refs today:) DMacks 12:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hemmes

My crew have been trying to get an entry placed on Wikipedia about me. It was speedy deleted. I'm not sure how to avoid that. They wanted to do this because of the political and social discussion in my films which have led to my appointment as the Vice President of the Peoria AZ film festival. We had a six hundred word essay on us (My film The Domain) in the AZ republic yet that wasn't enough to avoid speedy deletion. What are we missing?

Paul Hemmes

[edit] Your tagging of Bruce nguyen

I just want to note that "non-notable rabbit band" may be the best speedy deletion criteria I have ever read. Improbcat 17:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Ways to remember Redox

Hey DMacks

No worries, I was just bumming around Wikipedia seeing what I could add to it (I'm a newbie). Didn't know it was debated in the past.

Thanks for the heads up
Wikicrow 13:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Soda-bottle images

I see you have posted several images of soda-bottle atomic/molecular orbitals, such as those described in the J. Chem. Educ. article. Are you he? DMacks 04:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am he. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemistrannik (talk • contribs)

[edit] Perl fixes

Hi!

Thanks for fixing my file handling! --Slashme 19:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Civility warning

Thank you for your kindly reminding, I don't know if you refer this to Talk:OpenDarwin in Project Closure section. I have reworded my reply. I don't want to be rude. It is just really irritating this anonymous user from 87.11.3.26 said I am lier without reading my comments clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lielei (talk • contribs) 13:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KACE (radio station)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of KACE (radio station), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: KACE. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 18:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin

Hi there, I would like to nominate you as an admin. The extra tools are quite useful and you are very well-qualified. Would you accept the nomination if I were to put you forwards? All the best Tim Vickers 20:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I'm honored/flattered/cowering, but ready and willing to accept the users' rants about my actions. What do I need to do? DMacks 21:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
That's great news! I'll create the nomination page and put a link here. All you'll have to do is accept the nomination and answer the questions on the page. Tim Vickers 23:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
TimVickers would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact TimVickers to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DMacks. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

You still have to formally accept the nomination, on the RfA page for your nomination! --Orange Mike 19:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup…hadn't finished answering the questions:) All done now, and accepted. DMacks 20:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] De-spamming

Good catch on that IP spammer. --Orange Mike 19:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] iGuard spam

Indeed. Also, FYI, I've prodded iGuard as spam. Aleta 22:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit: Oh, actually I meant User:Thinmints. Aleta 22:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Search Amigo

Search Amigo does exist, so not sure what you are talking about. www.searchamigo.net Go there, and tell me how this does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.97.74 (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is in response to IP's talk page, responded there. DMacks (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your RFA was successful

Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi DMacks, first off, congratulations! I hope you find the tools useful. I also have a small favor to ask. You might have noticed that your nomination was one of several others I made over the last few weeks, this was partly spurred by the threat of IPs being allowed to create new pages, but also has a more general objective. This other reason was that I have been a little disturbed by a growing attitude that admins are more than just editors with a few more buttons on their toolbars and are instead "senior editors" with greater authority. I think that the best way of dealing with this idea is to greatly expand the pool of admins to include a wider diversity of the pool of editors.
Since you have now passed the selection, would it be possible for you in turn select and nominate some people you trust? I'd suggest aiming for about three over the next month or so. Of those who are selected, could you ask them in turn to select and nominate three candidates. Such a chain of trust should result, over time, in a greatly enlarged pool of admins from a wide variety of backgrounds and thus provide a simple and effective way of spreading the responsibility - perhaps to the point where becoming an admin is seen as normal and expected, rather than a major achievement. I hope you'll be able to help me with this. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Congrats and cool-a-rama, Mr Mcaks. I knew a brain as good as yours wouldn't go to waste. Well, probably wouldn't.  ;-) --Ossipewsk (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting an entry Wikipedia is supposedly launching themselves?

Some journalists are saying Wikipedia itself is going to launch a "human search engine", yet Wikipedia wants to delete the entry. Wow. Is there more to all this?

http://www.editorsweblog.org/news/2007/09/wikipedia_to_launch_human_search_engine.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.97.74 (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, wikipedia doesn't really care what others call its ideas. See WP:NEO. DMacks (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion.

Why did you delete the topic of my new religion?

Would you go and delete the page for Islam or Judaism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.191.180 (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UWGschoolseal.jpg

Could you also please delete the Image:UWGschoolseal.jpg page for me? My original use for it has been supplanted by a better looking version. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Werecowmoo (talk • contribs)

Done. DMacks (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kermit picture

I tagged that as vandalism because it wasn't appearing on the page and appeared to be random typing: shortly thereafter, a valid version was uploaded, or the servers caught up, or whatever. However, I'm confused by the editor uploading the same picture twice, with a dated fair use warning already in the summary. What do you think?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Not confused anymore: "Epic fucking shit" is not the first phrase that comes to mind when Kermit is involved.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blu-ray disc

While the 1 month lock is rather harsh, especially in these days, since you're the guy who locked it could you at least remove the picture and claim that Magma released the first adult movie on BD? Not only is the image inappropriate, but the caption for it is incorrect. The first adult movies for BD were released in 2006 in Japan:

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=4221

I'd rather not try to explain Blu-ray related information to other people and then having them notice "interesting", but irrelevant pictures in an article related to home entertainment.

90.149.15.238 (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. In general, the talk page is left unlocked even when a page is locked, so you can comment there and lots of people with the ability to fix it will see your comments. DMacks (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah thanks :-). I'll use the talk page next time. 90.149.15.238 (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roadcrusher

LOL and I thought I was the only one that recognized his horrendous understanding of copyright rules. I gotta say that the crappy FU rationales are considerably more sophisticated than they were before, though still totally invalid. Kelvinc (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I suspect that he believes that all images can be fair use if a rationale is given, not realizing that sometimes there just isn't a fair use. That was pretty much my last attempt at prodding him in the right direction, since stylistically he pretty much knows what's expected so I suspect he's close to getting what's expected of his actions. But he didn't take the right course, and the facts that there are now several of us who are so acquainted with his style and that he's actually become better at hiding the violation through sophisticated template usage, means I have no hesitation in the future in asking for immediate indef blocks if any more socks pop up. Kelvinc (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Recent Reject of an AIV Report

That user (P wee bob peck) was probably reported more for being an obvious sockpuppet of PWeeHurman. --EoL talk 02:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh…indef'ed then. Thanks for the details. DMacks (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The block of User:Epeabody

Hi! I've no brief to speak for this user, but I can see what he was trying to do. Please can you WP:AGF and reconsider the block? His problem is that he doesn't understand how wikilinks work - see my post to his user page. If you'd looked at the "What links here" for the funny short articles he'd created it would've been clearer. Philip Trueman (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The block was primarily for the several very inappropriate pages he created, for which he received numerous warnings (including level3 and level4, i.e., "impending block if you don't shape up"). The Groton School abuse-allegation section is massively inappropriate, and user did not attempt to communicate why he was reverting well-explained removal of it. I would reduce the (presently week-long) block to a day or two if you think there is hope for this user, but I see no evidence of learning or improvement on his part despite lots of attempts to tell him what was wrong and what would happen if he continued. DMacks (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't have OTRS access either - I deleted a lot of that user's pages as copyvios, saw some edits to the school, checked the edit history and saw that the allegations had been removed by someone citing OTRS, so I removed them as they weren't actually referenced. You're better off asking User:Mbimmler - he's the one who originally removed the information and he has OTRS access. Hut 8.5 18:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Chiming in (Dmacks, thanks for the notice on my talk page!). The situation is roughly as follows: OTRS received complaint about the abuse allegations in the article. I checked the article and removed the paragraph, stating both in the edit summary and the talk page that it needs be sourced to be reinserted. I then got emails by User:Epeabody where he told me that this was widely covered by newspapers. In the course of our email conversaion, I told him that he can reinsert the paragraph if linked to a valid source. I also pointed him to the relevant help pages where referencing and footnotes are explained. Now, looking at the diffs, I really don't understand what he tried (he only wikilinked some terms?), but I would prima facie assume good faith, he seemed interested to research and supply sources. However, I cannot comment on the "history" of this user, as I was not involved in this before. Further, he has asked me via email to transmit a message to you where he appeals his block. For the record, I'm pasting his message below. Feel free to contact me again if there are further questions. --Mbimmler (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
What he appears to have done is cut'n'paste source documents into WP and then linked to them (the weird links you saw in the article, and the speedy-notices on his talk pages) rather than citing them via external-URL links. So lots of editorial problems here besides the mini-revert-war. Unblocked and warned one final time per AGF (I too received some emails from him). DMacks (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Mythbusters

Yeah, just saw that. No problem. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Stacy Barbour

Dear DMacks,

Thank you for all you've done thus far..., but *Oc751 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - is Owlsnest25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Humordog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Humordog1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Humorous1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) in sockpuppet form. This deceptive entity has been warned but will continue to create new accounts and vandalize James Stacy Barbour. Vandalism continued less than 48 hours after the temporary protection ended. Please, consider reinstating a protection for article James Stacy Barbour. thank you, --Ydmyterko (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And thank you for the speedy response. Cheers! --Ydmyterko (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No problemo! I noted my suspicions abou Oc751 in my block note for him. I'm coming in late to the party I think...have other admins dealt with this guy before? Would it be useful for checkuser to tie them together officially and then just block a certain IP that he keeps using (better to block hopelessly malicious user and ignore him than protect article from many editors), or do we not know if he even has static IP? DMacks (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bloodrayne Protection

Thanks so much for re-protecting BloodRayne and BloodRayne 2. That vandal obviously has more time on his hands than we do. Web Warlock (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you do the same for BloodRayne (series), same vandal doing the exact same thing. Thanks. Web Warlock (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. Though that article does need a lot of work IMO. DMacks (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. and yes, it does need some help. Honestly it could even be merged back into BloodRayne and BloodRayne 2. I am not sure if two titles constitute a series. Web Warlock (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Vandal to BloodRayne

Our little vandal friend is back pasting the same text as before to the BloodRayne and BloodRayne 2 articles. Can I trouble you to protect them again? Thanks. Web Warlock (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

6 more months of peace. Enjoy:) DMacks (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll give him credit for his tenacity. Thanks. Web Warlock (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you. But it looks like BloodRayne (series) needs to be protected as well. Thanks. Web Warlock (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Review

moved to Talk:Critical Review (Brown University)

[edit] Pseudonym MOS issue you raised

I've proposed a clarification for the MOS issue regarding pseudonyms that you rightly pointed out was vague. Check it out: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Pseudonym_guideline_wording. Cheers, Melty girl (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing and damage to Wikipedia

I opppose -- vocally and repeatedly-- the current trend to "source" each line. It does not improve the encyclopedia. Ultimately, articles will disappear and Wikipedia could become simply a list of quotes relating to a given topic. The encyclopedia would contain no weighted opinions, no alternative viewpoints and so no insight into the topic. As to the material in Kiln, talk (remember talking as a primary source?) to any ceramic artist who uses electric kilns (not me, I use gas) and they will support the statement. It is common knowledge among artists, and there was a boom in sales to studio potters when electric kilns became more dependable and allowed a more varied firing pattern. But where do you think we will find a book on the history of electric kilns? The persistant anon appears to be an appliance technician rather than an artist and so sees the concept as "irrelevant". When does the usage pattern of a tool/appliance become irrelevant to an article about the tool? Again, an example of how "sourcing" changes the focus of the article. Of course, consensus doesn't mean anything either, does it? nly the strength of authority? But isn't an admin just another editor? That's what we've all been told. This kind of weighted nuance is why, despite invitations, I have decided against becoming an administrator. WBardwin (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi DMacks. Thank you for your input to the discussion on kiln I believe that WBardwinn is wrong to suggest that the sentence be allowed to stand. It is an unsubstantiated claim. He also makes further unsubstantiated claims as he says I am appliance technician, which I am not. I have used gas kilns, I have used electric kilns. I use electric kilns nearly ever day. I do not recognise "common knowledge among artists" and "talk to any ceramic artist who uses electric kilns (not me, I use gas) and they will support the statement." These do not tally with my experience, but then I would not include this without supporting reference - otherwise it's just voicing personal opinion or original research. Anyway this is not about "source" each line it is about ensuring that claims are supported by valid references, which is not talking to "any ceramic artist."


Please note that this anon is now following me around, going to another user page, and making snide remarks (copy below, with my response). I simply disagree with the sourcing issue and believe the innocuous comment should probably stay for now. I suspect, if I really looked, I could find something to document it. But the source probably would me no more reliable than Wikipedia, as it is not a current topic of academic interest.
As I believe that this type of "shadowing" is one of the areas that admins are assigned to become involved with, I would appreciate you discussing the matter with the persistent anon. Thank you. WBardwin (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
:Well is a citation needed? After all "Any source can be used in Wikipedia -- any source -- no matter how reputable, how self-serving, how fantastic. A source does not distinguish garbage from opinion -- it simply documents opinion." left by anon : 86.151.154.226
don't mind the above, Doppelbock. He's following me around because I disagree with deleting a section from an unrelated article. And yes, the quote above is mine. I do think we need to improve our sources. Sorry you got involved in this unrelated spat. WBardwin (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I was simply trying to inject a little humour and lighten the mood. It hardly necessitates telling tales to "teacher."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.154.226 (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Festivus!

I plant a stick into the earth
For Christians' celebration of their savior's birth.

[edit] songs and other speedies

You seem to have speedy deleted 5 articles about songs as non-notable A7 But A7 non-notable is not among the types of things specified in CSDA7: person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content. Agreed, the articles are terrible, but that just isn't one of the reasons. They aren;t really empty or no-context either, as if the song were notable this would have been a stub, Comfortable (lil wayne song), President Carter (lil wayne song), Something you forgot (lil wayne song), Pom pom (lil wayne song), Prostitue (lil wayne song). I am reluctant to take these to DRV--for they are worthless articles-- but they had been correctly Prodded by another editor, and the Prod was the correct way to get rid of them.

Robben Van Winkle is certainly a speedy as non-notable, but you deleted it as nonsense.
Ren Zhang is a undoubtable copyvio of [5] and [6],as indicated by another ed., but you deleted it as spam. If it hadn't been entirely copyvio, the spam could probably have been fixed by removing the initial part, so copyvio would have been the right reason. (& its usually the better reason when present in any case, since it it really incontestable)

It certainly does matter to get rid of the junk like these, but it is confusing to the contributors when they are removed for the wrong reasons or in the wrong manner. DGG (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I've been a bit too fast and imprecise in the new year:(
For the song articles, I nuked a whole album-worth from the same creator that all seemed to have the same format. Some were tagged speedy (is how I came across them), and since the pages all appeared the same, I hit them all. I've seen A7 used for albums and related things before, though looking now, I see that it is against the wording of A7: "not articles on their books, albums, software, and so on." Yeah, should have waited for the prod to expire.
Robben Van Winkle and Ren Zhang I deleted based on their tagging (note that the latter's deletion message does also appear to state that it's a cut'n'paste as well as being spam), I guess I've been too hasty to accept the tagging reason, will have to look more closely and also finish getting used to the ever-changing deletion interface. Thanks for the heads'-up. DMacks (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advanced Packaging Tool

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Advanced Packaging Tool, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. In addition, the information that was deleted was notable enough for inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.138.31.76 (talk)

I direct your attention to where I wrote "again remove non-notable trivia" in the edit summary for my edit. By all means continue the discussion about this very piece of content started long ago on the article Talk page. ~~

[edit] It's Academic

You should not be removing things from pages based on what "seems suspicious," especially when you have quite clearly not done any research at all and have no familiarity with the topic of the page. You can view a picture of Hillary Clinton on an It's Academic team in Chicago here:

http://doc-ent.com/qbwiki/index.php?title=Hillary_Clinton

You could have confirmed that the program aired in Chicago in the 1960s with 5 seconds of Googling or use of a news archive, but instead you chose to mindlessly increase your edit count by wreaking havoc in a topic you know nothing about. No doubt you will be awarded another "barnstar" for your next millionth destructive edit. This is the problem with Wikipedia: a million "editors," no qualified experts or concern for whether the articles are true. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not my job to do others' research, but rather the responsibility of whoever adds material to supply citations. This is especially important for high-profile persons (see WP:BLP). In a few seconds of Google searching, I found that she was an alternate, so the content I removed appears demnostrably false. I will not respond to your other allegations specifically, except to remind you about WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, lest you get blocked again for violating them (see also others' comments on your talk page regarding edit-discussion vs attack). DMacks (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Fluoride

"The most widely accepted adverse effect of low concentration fluoridation at this time is fluorosis." - this sentence doesn't make any sense to me, but I won't revert it since you probably know a lot more about the subject than I do. However,

"Dental fluorosis occurs because of the excessive intake of fluoride either through naturally occurring fluoride in the water, water fluoridation, toothpaste, or other sources"

To me, the article says that the less flouride in the water, the more likely dental fluorosis becomes, which of course isn't the case. Aeluwas (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote it a bit, I think it makse more sense now. Also mentions in a bit more detail that some opposose water fluoridation completely. Aeluwas (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me! DMacks (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yay. The ozone is fixed!

Hee hee hee... HalfShadow (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! DMacks (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
When I saw Crazy Boris 'Requesting semi-protection of Earth's atmosphere' , I just found it the funniest thing I'd read today. HalfShadow (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Yup. Wasn't until you commented here that I noticed it though:) DMacks (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remarks

Please stop leaving messages on my talk page, it makes me look bad, thank you. 72.218.117.194 (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Over-Unity"

Just seen you trying to argue at Talk:Water fuel cell. Unfortunately, the Laws of Nature aren't directly included in Wikipedia's large number of policies and guidelines. Trimming the strange down to a sane proportion is a much needed but not very rewarding contribution here. If you're crazy enough to try, I can suggest e.g. having a look at my brainstorming page User:Pjacobi/Hydrogen quackery and the linked articles. Or for a larger package User:Tim Starling/List of crackpot theories, the really fearless uses Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience/Articles attracting pseudoscientific edits/publicwatchlist. --Pjacobi (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't planning to extend the argument, since anything beyond what I said has already been rehashed a zillion times on that talk page. I'm all for including pseudoscience in WP if it's notable and clearly identified as the pseudoscience/hoax/whatever that it is. DMacks (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Sirgeoph

Hey DMacks,

I noticed you put a reference to a {prod} tag on a new user's page without "welcoming" them. I always put a {subst:welcome!} on a newbie's page in addition to the warning -- encourages them to "try try again", you know? Just a suggestion. We were all newbies once!!  :-) Cheers laurap414 (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] archivelist

A new archive box is going to replace the current 3 versions, which does not use the archivelist parameter. I changed the archive back into a box, but this is somewhat useless unless you are going to update it every time you create a new archive. I would recommend having {{atn}}, {{talkarchivenav}}, {{archive-nav}}, or use the auto parameter in the archive box. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The old template had the archivelist on a separate page: I only had to update that one place when I created a new archive, and my talk and all archive pages would load that one list. DMacks (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Unlike any of the automatic ways, that lets me annotate the entries to make it easier to figure out what each is instead of just links called "Archive 1", etc. Looks like transclusion of the external archivelist page into {{archive box}} works, so I'm back in business I think. DMacks (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I was a little quick. I'm going to undo my edit. Sorry MrKIA11 (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Radio 10 (BBC)

Hi. You seem to have deleted the Radio 10 article, which was based largely on a press release and on a BBC broadcast - so there can be no copyright reasons.

Also, it seems to have been an important element in the Cold War planning in the UK - much was secret and it is only now coming to light. (IDid you hear the BBC programme? It was quite stunning)

There seems to be a tendency to delete non-American articles in Wikipedia now ... (My last 3 have all been deleted, although they relate to things that look important and in one case has lasted in the UK for 300 years: surely that is a test of "notability"?!)

Johnbibby (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: Am flying to the USA myself in 2 days, so do not have time to follow this up now.

The article appeared to be an essentially exact copy of the given website, not just based largely on it. If it were an actual copying of public text, that's okay if the Wikipedia page makes that fact clear. Which it did not, so with regard to the WP content, all indications were that the editor who posted that text was claiming to have written it. So if it's public text, it's viable WP content if the source of that actual text is cited as the source of the actual text (i.e., quotation marks or something like that).
However, I didn't (and still don't) see any indication on the BBC program-description webpage that the content is a free pres-release, and the general "Terms of use" on that site appear to prohibit republication on WP pretty clearly.
I agree that Radio 10 sounds important, but WP articles need to be written by WP editors, not just copied from press-releases. If there's not sufficient citable material (at this time) to support the notability of Radio 10, might be better to have the page redirect to some more general Cold-War article (is there a page about contingency-planning, or British preparations, or something?). The BBC program would be a great reference for a sentence or two about Radio 10 in one of those articles. DMacks (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Pakistan Naval College

Hello. Apparently you deleted my article on Pakistan Navy College which was better than the then Pakistan Naval College. ThanksXubayrMA (talk)

A copyright violation is never better than anything. What I deleted was a cut'n'paste from the college's own website, with a few minor word-changes. The article needs to be written from scratch in your own words, not copied and tweaked. DMacks (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] COinS and nbsp on the Cite_journal template

Can you please look at recent comments on Template talk:Cite journal re. your removal of the non-breaking space breaking COinS? Thanks --Karnesky (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plain Language Commission

Hi DMacks, would you care to explain why the article I created was speedy-deleted even after I'd added a {{hangon}} tag? Also why it was deleted for a completely different reason (non-notable) than the one originally given by the editor that originally tagged it ("blatant advertising")? All this was done at lightning speed without so much as a note on my talk page. How can I defend an entry when I don't even get the chance to learn what it's accused of? Flapdragon (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It was tagged for speedy-deletion, and you edited the page 15 minuted after it was tagged, so clearly you knew it was tagged. You added a {{hangon}}, but the hangon clearly states that it is merely an advisory note. The article sat around for another 90 minutes, during which time nobody (apparently) believed that the problem was resolved well enough to remove the speedy tag. The article did completely fail to make a cited claim about this entity's notability, but in my reading did not appear spammy (I felt it was on the "not making substantiated notability claims" side of a sometimes fine line away from "making empty PR claims", which is I assume how the speedy-tagger read it), so listed the primary concern of mine as the reason for deletion. Feel free to recreate it in a form that makes specific cited claims to support how this group clears the WP:ORG standard. DMacks (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Could you explain your strange deletion behavior?

Why the WIRED page have been removed? Fisrt of all, you are certainly so nerd that you couldn't have noticed that WIRED is a FREE OPEN SOURCE software NOT developped by a company but by a group of student; that its links redirect to its official website, wired.sourceforge.net, that it is now part of the Ubuntu Studio distro But I surely had forgot you re too nerd for reading the article; so after the look at the title, I guess you told yourself: "well I can't see the company's name; so I guess this is a crappy article". Well; after all; you might be just another Wiki admin who thinks he got superpowers and all... Can't you just be serious on your work? A lack of source on the article? Yeah, that's what I thought, you just read the headlines.

I hope you'll reconsider your Wiki administration; this is too lame. And sorry for my english; I don't have time for lamerz.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobnico (talk • contribs) 13:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your anger is your problem here, not English per se. Every personal attack distracts from whatever point you're actually trying to make and reduces the likelihood of people thinking you have one at all. So start again: what specific page are you even talking about? WIRED is perfectly existing I don't see evidence that I've deleted it. Remember that "crappy" (either in article writing or in editor's opinion of its topic) isn't a criterion for speedy-deletion, but failure to make any sort of cited claim to notability is. Wikipedia is not a collection of articles on every piece of software that has been written. DMacks (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oops

Sorry for the deletion there, (water fuel cell discussion) Actually I went back and undid my deletion and reposted the comment. It was what I felt to be a personal attack and had no bearing on the discussion. I am not alone with the comments that I posted and addressing them on the discussion page will shed some light on those issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I55ere (talk • contribs) 23:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taunting the PHYSICS MAGAZINE (homework) guy

Hi, The reason I asked was that while most of the "help" seemed to be correct but irrelevant (e.g. assuming Lorentz contraction), the bit where isotope sizes were explained as affecting gas pressure appeared to be wrong. Plus of course I like to argue minutiae when I'm confident it won't harm an important discussion. :-) AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of iitjobs

I have put up a talk page for iitjobs.com for your reference and i have also mentioned reliable and reputed sources which confirm that it is indeed a reputable and verifiable source.I am new to wiki so i couldn't add the citing.Please check it and revert back to me.

I personally don't think that the page should have been deleted.Another user majorly also had some contribution here,please check that also.

Jason thenerd (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)jasonthenerd

I have clarified my points,please have a look.

Thanks

Jason thenerd (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Distance and My Demons

I spent several hours today creating two pages on wikipedia (I am not experienced in doing this, so even the simplest pages took me a long time going step by step). Within moments they had both been deleted!

I cited both pages and, I thought, made it clear why they were notable. Is there a way to get them back or to find out why they were deleted?

Max

P.S. I have since remade the Distance page, which is why it was so endlessly frustrating to discover that you had deleted the My Demons page.

Still no support for claim to "being a major proponent of the genre", and that doesn't sound that notable anyway (aren't many people proponents of what they do?). A year-old record label isn't overtly notable (tons of artists found their own indie labels when getting started). I see no wikicommons items related to this person (the link I just removed gave me lots of things about distance and artist, but not an artist named "Distance"). Need actual reliable sources that review this artist's work, or evidence that he's been on major tours, that others recognize him as a major player in his genre, etc. Even if I leave it as-is, it would surely lose in a deletion discussion based on lack of notability. DMacks (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Molecular modellling

Hi, I noticed you've been removing lots of pipes of the sort [[Molecular modelling|molecular modeling]] saying "call it what it's named". It's not a matter of naming, but of national varieties of English. The spelling with one l is more common in the US, while the spelling with two l's is more common in the UK (and probably elsewhere). Therefore I think what matters is to be consistent with the variety used in the article containing the link, rather than the variety used in the title of the target article. Otherwise it would like changing [[color|colour]] into [[color]] in an article that is written using UK spelling. To avoid any confusion, I spelled the title of this section with three l's. :) --Itub (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. In that case, how about just [[molecular modeling]], so that people see the page with a "locally comfortable" spelling? DMacks (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
That's certainly what I would do, since there is a redirect already in place. I'd rather avoid the pipes and let the redirects do their job. --Itub (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll un/refix my fixes later today. DMacks (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Spam on Walter Lewin and related pages

Hi, the bot monitoring is a good call. I was tempted to post a blacklist request after this mornings spam, but it maybe seemed a bit too much given it is just two pages. The anon doesn't seem to get the message though, so a bot doing our job for us is a welcome addition! SFC9394 (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Our friend still isn't getting the message and has been back at it again today, so I have submitted a blacklist request [7]. Hopefully if it goes through that should save us from having to waste time on it. SFC9394 (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] barrons cafe page

I now see how this could have been seen as advertising, but that was not my intention at all. Within minutes, I had configured the article to meet the required standards however the page already had been deleted. Please advise if it would be worthwhile recreating, of course I would be providing information from a neutral standpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maritoes (talk • contribs)

If you can write it neutrally and include information about how the cafe is notable, then it's certainly welcome. DMacks (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

will do —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maritoes (talk • contribs) 05:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning Users

Why did you bypass step three and go directly to step four in warning this user? [8]. Happy Editing, Dustitalk to me 18:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Long history of nothing but vandalism from that user, so I didn't think it was worth anyone's time waiting for step-wise increases since ample evidence that user doesn't care. DMacks (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DMacks, I could use your help regarding an attack page

Earlier today, February 27, you deleted an attack page regarding Aptina. I am trying to find a copy of the content and perhaps locate the user. Can you point me in the correct direction to find these?

Thanks.SoTureForYou (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You already seem to know that it created by User:Aptina. The only content of the article, apart from various inappropriate material, was "A privately held CMOS image sensor company based in San Jose, California". DMacks (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Do you happen to know how I could get a copy of the content including the inappropriate material? I work for Aptina's parent company. Aptina is actually not yet public information, and we are trying to track down the leak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoTureForYou (talk • contribs) 00:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked the Wikimedia Foundation for help here. I'm not sure it's appropriate for me to republish material that was deleted because it wasn't supposed to be published. Will update when they get back to me. DMacks (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Saw your OTRS ticket. There's nothing to undelete and it's a waste of energy agonising about it, it was a very short diatribe against the firm by some idiot and there's no way the creator of the current article (which is unambiguous spam) would want it in the history. Guy (Help!) 20:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Hovind Copyrighted Image

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A copyright violation has procedures to go though, you cant just remove the copyright violation tag.--71.217.206.152 (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a procedure, but I don't see where you have followed it (i.e., listing the image on the dated copyright-concerns page in order to prompt discussion of the issue). Therefore, we are left with your requesting administrator help to resolve the issue. You have failed to indicate what the issue even is, other than that you don't like what's there. That's not a valid copyright concern...you need to have a specific claim against what is written, which on its face is a source and a fair-use/non-free rationale. DMacks (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now you've listed it. But you've still rejected out-of-hand the given source and rationale. Okay, we'll followup on the disputes page... DMacks (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Okay, you've been blocked for vandalism for this cr-concerns tagging mess, so I'll ignore it. DMacks (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Contact

DMacks would you mind contacting me via email or phone if I provided you with contact information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoTureForYou (talk • contribs) 20:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Baltimore Hebrew University

Can't take credit for it: whenever I see something skeptical in an article, I Google it. If it's published somewhere else, and there's no license permitting republication, I call copyvio until proven otherwise. DodgerOfZion (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cartoon Network

Why was "Cartoon Network" deleted? it's a very popular american cable channel. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 19:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You happened to catch the middle of several page moves. There are several "Cartoon Network"s, editors had apparently (finally!) come to a consensus about what the actual Cartoon Network page should be. DMacks (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I see! I'm sorry if i disrupted anything. Is there anything i can do to help? RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No problemo...it certainly looks weird when an "important" page suddenly goes away! I was just handling the requested administrative tasks; others are actually figuring out the "which page goes where" issues. Check the history of those pages to see who's really working on it. DMacks (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] deletion of 'Cinema Prague'

The Cinema Prague article was deleted today by you, almost immediately after coming up.

I thought the article was ok as a stub, but evidently it doesn't meet that criteria. OK.

I'm assuming that I could research up another article on this subject, repost it, and this article would be viewed as a new article.

Is it possible to have the deleted article emailed to me or put on my main user page?Cangorongo (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored to User:Cangorongo/Cinema Prague. Please work soon to get it up to the minimum criteria for bands. DMacks (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of "Rocco Settonni"

Hello,

Apparently you deleted my topic "Rocco Settonni: because it was insignificant to Wikipedia and the community. The truth was i wasn't done with the article but i had to save and shut my computer down right away and didn't back up the info on another file because i didn't believe it would get deleted.

I have much more information to put down on Settonni that would describe him as a community leader and a significant part of the Cleveland suburbs.

Hope you can restore my article back on where i left it!

Thanks,

Richie770 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie770 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Give me some cited claim of notability in order to justify the page existing (i.e., counteract its speedy-deletabilty) and I'll be happy to restore it. DMacks (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


Sources to make entered person valid:

http://www-catalog.cpl.org/CLENIX/ACY-0554

 - Life long struggles of life Rocco's father suffered

http://www.spellingbee.com/07bee/rounds/Round03.htm

 - Shows academic progess Mr. Settonni makes in his academic career

http://www.berea.k12.oh.us/mhs/site/Directory_List.asp?byType=38

 - Official programs Rocco is involved in to make credibility.

http://www.cylc.org/NYLC/

 - Program Rocco was elected to become leader of community.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie770 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I've restored Rocco Settonni and copied these cites to it. However, I've also started a discussion for others to comment on his notability because these claims sound notable in the casual English sense but not for the wikipedia meaning for people and because the citations are not specific. You really need artcles with actual focus on this particular person, not just a site about a project with which he has been involved or something relatives have done. DMacks (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, the article should not have been restored until after the author provided satisfactory references. User namespace could have been used, but the deletion justification was valid -- there were no legitimate claims of notability found. (WP:CSD#A7 is not clear whether claims have to be legitimate: content like "Billy is so cool!!!1!" can be deleted per A7; using it on this is discretionary, at least from my observation.) Your thoughts are welcome. :-) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The article has been deleted by use of A7 and salted. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I was kinda fence-sitting on it, and the claims at least sounded like they could be viable, so I decided to undo my speedy per A7's "This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources." Wasn't until a bit later that I looked closer and saw how weak the claims and cites actually were. I gotta stop second-guessing myself on these things... DMacks (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Weber‎

Could you check out David Weber‎ again? I think some things went wrong in moving it back, and now I can't een find the page! Also, the user that originally moved the page has tried again. COuld you protect the David Weber‎ from being moved once it's been restored? I left a not on the talk page asking the user to propose a proper move, but he's evidently not seen it, or is ignoring it. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The original talk page is now back at Talk:David Weber (science fiction writer). PS Is there a tag to add to have a deleted page restored without having to go through the Undelete list page? (Like a {{db}} in reverses?) - BillCJ (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I've fixed the move mess. David Weber (the author) is back where he goes, and I placed a disambig hatnote at the top of his page which should help anyone actually looking for the clarinetist. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for cleaning this up! Quite a mess indeed... DMacks (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Installment sale whatever deletion

Thanks, it was also a copyright violation from a Florida real estate book. I love google books so much, I seldom bother pulling anything off the shelves any more. --Blechnic (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ICE Culinary Deleton

We are using [this] as a sandbox to test our formatting. This is our personal page and we'll be deleting it once we have decided upon the correct format. We didn't want to take this page live without collaborating with a few people within our company. Please restore this page. Iceculinarynyc (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to use one of the standard sandbox locations for your development work. Restored to User:Iceculinarynyc/Institute of Culinary Education. Note that many editors are primed to delete it immediately, so please get it into good form very quickly. DMacks (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ragnar Godthab

Thanks for dealing quickly and decisively with this page. I think it's 99.999% likely to be a hoaxing attack page, but just to err on the site of non-biting I have offered to help the article's creator provided he can come up with verifiable references, which I trust will be satisfactory to you. If there's anything further that I can do to assist you, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to help him--will probably unravel these things as a hoax vs a bumbling newbie problem in short order. It sure sounded interesting, all we need is an actual WP:RS to support it. DMacks (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I was sufficiently interested to look up the references that were provided and, as I said, they came up empty; I believe one of them could not possibly have been citable as a reference in the way it was cited (suggesting that such-and-such a document was available on a police website when it could not be linked in that way, or searched). And the newspaper's website returned nothing under the unusual name given, as did a Google search with +sod. I admit that I was swayed in the belief that it was a hoax by the incongruity in the cutline to the photograph (which was obviously of a young adolescent), which led me to believe that this was some sort of attack page in the form of a hoax. But I also admit that I could be wrong, which is why I offered to help him -- we'll see what happens. Thanks for your help. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] jimboapu

how would Cyclooctatetraene being planar make it conjugated and anti-aromatic? Benzene isnt planar the last time i checked (Chair conformation) and it is conjugated and aromatic. maybe i misunderstood your comment. and btw, did you delete my post on the huckel's rule page? Im not sure I understand what factual information was incorrect. Jimboapu (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Benzene is planar. "Chair conformation" sounds like you're thinking about cyclohexane? One of the requirements to talk about pi-system conjugation and aromaticity is that all the pi bonds (or atomic p orbitals) be parallel. As a result, the aromatic part of the structure winds up being planar. That's why cyclooctatetraene exists as a tub-shaped molecule: by becoming non-planar, it breaks the conjugation among the pi bonds to avoid being antiaromatic (8 pi electrons) and really behaves like four independent "normal" alkenes. Antiaromaticity isn't just a description of a molecule--being antiaromatic is a destabilizing effect, so molecules try to change conformation to avoid this state. "COT is planar" or "COT has an 8 pi electron conjugated system" are false in theory and in fact. Secondarily, it was all written in the tone of a teacher ("let's look", "you obtain", "basically") not a factual encyclopedia. DMacks (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

ok thanks. im new at making additions to wiki, ill try my hand again. ya, chair=cyclohexane silly me. The main thing I was trying to contribute was the designation of n, which is commonly misunderstood by those new to the concept. I started talking about other stuff that I was a little careless about! Ill just be more general and stick to the facts. Jimboapu (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Always great to have new editors who are interested in science. Possibly the best explanation is actually in the caption of the benzene structure on that page. DMacks (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sulfoxide-tetrahedral.png

Hello DMacks, this is just to inform you that I used this image for interwiki purpose (here) since it is tagged as "public domain images". Please let me know if there are any disagreements. Forgive my poor English.. Thank you.--Puppy8800 (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to use it. I am glad that you find it useful! DMacks (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Groton School

Mr. Macks,

Thought you'd be interested in the MA Supreme Court ruling re: Groton abuse case. http://www.masslaw.com/signup/opinion.cfm?page=ma/opin/sup/1015902.htm This citing lays out the case in a complete manner. Clearly, Empacherc 12 (who keeps editing this section and you) prefers a spun version of the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.86.46 (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting--thanks! DMacks (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

Yeah, “Goat” has been taking an endless beating. I'm glad to see it semi-protected. But I fear that this particular article, for cultural reasons, is going to go right back to being a special target of vandals as soon as semi-protection is lifted. —SlamDiego←T 00:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have it watch-listed, no objections to permanent semi-proteciton on a moment's notice if needed. DMacks (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting the texts within quotation template

Do you know how to format the texts within the Template:Quotation. So that the whole text can be divided into two separate paragraphs. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You could use <br> to force a line-break, giving:

foo
bar

– woof

Not very pretty IMO, but none of the Help:Newlines and spaces tricks seem to work in this context:( DMacks (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it worked in the Law section in the article Prostitution in Pakistan. Thank you very much. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alprazolam vandalism

Hi, I see that you gave this user User_talk:96.234.49.165 a final warning concerning a couple of weeks ago regarding his repeated vandalism to the alprazolam article. Well he has come back for the 5th time blanking out sections. Can you place a block on his ip please? They seem to be using a static ip address which is good. I would prefer that the user is blocked rather than the article protected but will leave the decision up to you. I suspect that it is the drug companies as they seem to want to remove the overdose and recreational use sections only. Thanks.--Literaturegeek (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just to understand why...

19:51, 9 May 2008 DMacks (Talk | contribs) deleted "Jean-Pierre Dutilleux" ‎ (G12: Blatant copyright infringement: also doesn't appear to claim notability)

The page I have created about Jean-Pierre Dutilleux, who is a famous indigenist and documentary filmaker (academy award nominated in 1979) has been deleted. He authorized me to use the biography of his website as a start. I needed it as i'm french and english langage is not that easy for me. So I just want to know why you have deleted this page.

Thanks.

Wikipedia cannot allow his writing unless he tells us it is allowed. It will be easier for you to write the article in your own words before placing it on Wikipedia. Take your time--there is no hurry to get it uploaded until it is ready. DMacks (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Love That Dog

You recently deleted this page as a G7 candidate. I think that there is a potentail article on the topic and the content that was originally there seemed like an acceptable stub. The creator likely blanked the page after being discouraged by the original speedy tag that was placed on the article. I would like to restart the page, starting with a stub - in order to prerve the history and prevent any GFDL issues I was wondering if you would be willing to restore the page history. Just before deletion the page looked like this and I was about to add sources such as this New York Times review and this mention in Time Magazine. Again I think the article should be restored for GFDL reasons and just to avoid discouraging the user who originally created the page. Guest9999 (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's back. Please add those refs ASAP! DMacks (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added the references[9] and will try to flesh out the article a bit. Guest9999 (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of BIT page

While I was posting a question on this page I rcvd notice the talk page of BIT was changed and found your expl. In reaction on that I have some -serious- further questions and would really appreciate it if you could have a look at it? Many tks, --JanT (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: I'll try to create a new setup after my holiday - so not before June 1st. Can I propose the setup via you before adding the page? --JanT (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure! DMacks (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] diketopiperazines

Um, no actually it does not explain how diketopiperazines occur in humans.68.148.164.166 (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
My original question was if diketopiperazines even occurred in humans at all. What creates diketopiperazines, what compounds have diketopiperazines, why are diketopiperazines in humans, and what do diketopiperazines do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.164.166 (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] I would appreciate some feedback ...

on the genetic code talk page before the figure being discussed is inserted. Doug youvan (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just got back...image looks like a useful addition to the page! DMacks (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "mental health" at the reference desk

Your response to this question was truly hilarious. High five! St3vo (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Upmerge of Category

I noticed you deleted the Category:Wikipedians in the Southern United States with a note of "Emptied (all pages upmerged) per CfD". Where is/was the CfD? Crkey (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians in the Southern United States DMacks (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)