User talk:DMCer/Archive 1

1993 Russian constitutional crisis
This article was promoted in 2004, when the FA-criteria were much lower. If you don't agree with the FA-status, you could always ask for a FA review, which would have been in line with Wiki policy of WP:BOLD. Since I agree with your point, I'll put it up for review. Er rab ee 10:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:MSM sunset 02.JPG
Hi DMCer,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:MSM sunset 02.JPG is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-08-10.  howcheng  {chat} 00:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

External Links from Westport, CT
I basically undid your edit to the external links – many of them are relevant to the town and it's residents.
 * Sorry, but it looks like other Wikipedians agreed with me. Links that are "relevant to it's [sic] residents", don't automatically qualify for inclusion on a Wikipedia article. I think the current ones are much more appropriate.-DMCer 12:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the "other Wikipedians" aren't paying attention. The links are going back up shortly – the policy for links on a page are that they be: "This page in a nutshell: Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." (From the WP:External links page). -- The links are a service to people who live in town, are considering moving to the town, or just want to know more about the town. -Agerstein 02:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your edit. Editors have already reached a consensus on the links for that article. The aim of Wikipedia is not to include every link that residents of a town could use. Many are irrelevant and are considered spam. Please do not revert them any more, if you do, I will contact an administrator to arbitrate.-DMCer 17:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope you both will consider ways you might reach a compromise. As I look over WP:External links it seems somewhat flexible, and in practice a lot of municipality articles tend to have a broader approach to external links. If a section of the article covers a topic, then a link to some Web page that covers the same topic would be appropriate, I think (so the town Education Department deserves a link). Many links could go into footnotes, which is not as easy for the reader, but is obviously within policy. for the Darien, Connecticut article, I converted a long list of links on community groups into a section listing and describing community groups, with each one footnoted. That might be part of a solution here. Why not try for a consensus? Noroton 18:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Images from Dartmouth College
Just wanted to let you know I've uploaded a ton of images to the Commons of the Dartmouth campus. See the note at Talk:Dartmouth College.

Creflo Dollar
You removed a request for citation I had made regarding a claimed similarity between Dollar's statement and a historical incident, saying "no cite needed, rule of 3." Could you please explain what you meant by that? Thanks. Qqqqqq 03:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As readings of both the articles show, the teachings of Creflo are identical to Arius' ideology, which is obviously considered heresy by the church writ large (as noted and cited in the article). I took off the CN tag because that, and because a simple Google search of the two names will find many sites harking about Creflo being a "false prophet" and "heretic" similar to Arius. My point is that it's clear enough (if one were to follow the link to the Arius article) that these teachings are considered similar. I hope this clarifies things, perhaps I should have been more specific.-DMCer 17:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject:Terrorism
Greetings,

I was hoping I could get some input from you, about the proposed mergerof WikiProject:Terrorism and counter-terrorism with Wikiproject:Terrorism. It seems there's a lot of overlap between the two projects, and if we spent a few days merging the lists of articles, sharing ideas and collaborating on improving the same articles which both projects are focused on improving...we could really make some headway. Whether you're in favour, or against, the idea of a merger – I'd appreciate some feedback regardless. Much thanks. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Total Information Awareness
I've reverted your addition of the spam tag to the external links section of the article because that particular template is for the user talk page only. As far as I can tell none of the links there are spam and all seem to be have been added by legitimate editors. Maybe you were planning to paste the template somewhere else and got stung by a bit of browser session management. Cheers Saganaki- 10:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the template you are looking for is linkfarm (with double curly brackets added either side). But I generally find that it's better to spend the time purging the links rather than using the tag. CheersSaganaki- 10:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is true, شكرا . DMCer 02:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Just letting you know
I've renominated Dartmouth College as a featured article candidate following a day of editing. I know you've helped out a lot in the article, so I'd appreciate your input at the discussion. Dylan 03:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

FA Task Force on Hillary Rodham Clinton
Will you join me in this Task Force to improve the article. The FA is getting into a shouting match, just short of people pulling out guns. I propose a way to consensus by improving the article so much that people say "wow, that's a good article!" 7F 21:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This comment was posted by the sock of a banned user, attempting to evade his ban, just so you know. I'd strike or remove it, but thought I'd leave that for you to do since you've seen it.Tvoz
 * I saw the ban. I don't care for editing Hillary's article all that much. The attempt is kind of comical though, thanks for the heads up.-DMCer 03:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your help on the Ameriprise website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.99.38 (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Happy to do it.DMCer (talk) 09:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Tag on Chariot racing
I've moved the tag you attached to Chariot racing. The tag now comes before the "Sources" section. This seems like a more appropriate location for the tag because editors may use the references already present to improve the article's sourcing, and those references may provide guidance to additional related references. Casey Abell 21:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I *almost* put it there, but didn't, just because nobody else seems to be doing it. I'll start now, thanks.-DMCer 03:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

The Bridge on the River Kwai
There is plenty of material supporting the assertions in the section on historical accuracy, but I have cited just two well respected books. I hope these suffices and help support the fact that the film is an outrageous slur on the behaviour of the Allied Forces. -- JMcC (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine, as long as there's a source. What do you mean by the "slur" comment?--- DMCer (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The film implies that Allied Forces, and the fictional Nicholson character in particular, collaborated with the Japanese merely to maintain their morale. In reality they were merely slave labourers; many were simply bayoneted if they did not comply, and they had to work to exhaustion despite lack of food and medicine. The film implies assisting the Japanese when they did all they could to do the complete opposite. The real Senior Allied Officer, Philip Toosey, was highly respected. His portrayal in the film can best be described as a grotesque caricature. JMcC (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I agree with your sentiments, just checking.DMCer (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Gymnastics Wikiproject
Your edits or discussions show that you may be interested in the new Gymnastics Wikiproject. Please join and help to start this new wikiproject. We need lots of members and lots of help. Wikiproject Gymnastics also contains the related sports of cheerleading, power tumbling, and trampolining.  Maddie talk 23:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Civil
You should know better than to label another editor's work as "irresponsible" and "stupid". Just address the arguments presented and leave out the insults. Rklawton (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was "irresponsible" and "stupid"; I wasn't trying to be cynical. Adding that template right after it was removed was in direct violation of the rules on the template itself, namely, "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." Can it be any clearer?  Having read that, if someone replaces it right away, I call that stupid, as it wastes time. I wasn't directing the comment at anyone in particular.-DMCer (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Murder of Russell Timoshenko
Please comment on the article page itself in a few moments, if you think it's still not notable, you can nominate it for deletetion. It was a big deal when it happened in the US because an illegal immigrant was the killer. This dispute of notability happens a lot, and the usual agreement is to make an article about the event and legal case itself.-DMCer (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Deaths in 2007 article is a place to record the death of notable individuals. It is not a place to record notable events or legal cases. The AfD determined that Timoshenko is not notable, so his name is not recorded in Deaths in 2007. WWGB (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * All red links are deleted in the month following the death, same as Timoshenko's entry. WWGB (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
for the barnstar! We'll see how low my GPA dips this term :) Good luck on finals. Dylan 19:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Section
DMCer: Please check the Bain & Company article. Tried to add lots of independent sources. Removed unsourced tag, but wanted to call it to your attention. Is it okay? Elvira100 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a great start, nice job. A lot of the language in the later paragraphs of that section read like blatant advertising, so I changed the wordng, and in a couple cases, removed material not in the sources. I placed tags after some sentences which really needed verification, and left others (that still should have them, but that I know are accurate) alone. Feel free to keep adding!-DMCer (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I like the changes you made, too. I'll come back to this (maybe other sections) when I have more time. Also will look for citations to some of the facts you called out that need verification. Elvira100 (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Merrill page
I edited the section regarding violation of civil rights and made sure everything is factual there. All the claims are ture and facts and are part of the EEOC law suit. I am not sure what purpos is served when you or someone "highlights" the word "July"?!! What is that supposed to mean? People should click on July to get what? To realize that is a month of the year!!!!!!! I consider those acts as a distraction from the main facts of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.31.212 (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Merrill Lynch civil rights violation section
Who is this DMCER ? Who gives you the right to over write this section? Are you affiliated with Merrill Lynch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.31.212 (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you read my edits? I left your wording largely intact, conformed the formatting to Wikipedia guidelines, and added sources to what you wrote. What is your concern?-DMCer (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to your note on Merrill's civil rights violations section
There are delicate facts and subtlties concerning this post that you are not aware of and by editting my post you oevrride them. Just to give you a simple example, altough there are a couple of articles written by National Iranian American Council (NIAC), only one of them mentions the letter by Arab American anti discriminaion committee (ADC) to Merrill Lynch protesting their conduct. Now you replace one article of NIAC by another and you drop the ADC statement!! The last version of the post is very conservatively written avoiding any personal comments. The statments attributed to EEOC are in the text of their law suit. Malice, Reckless, and intentional are descriptions of EEOC of Merrill's conduct. Also I prefer Hyperlinks to references at the end of the page. They are easier to access.I appreciate if you aviod editting a subject you don't know much about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.31.212 (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) According to WP:IC The hyperlinking style you're using should be avoided: "...Few Feature Articles use this style; the common objection during the FAC process is 'remove external links from main body (referring to this inline citation style), transform into proper inline citation style'." There is no reason this section should have SIX embedded links when its other links are in the more proper footnote format.  I have left the word "ordered" as an imbedded link to suit you.
 * 2) I did not "replace on article of NIAC by [sic] another." As you can clearly see in the edit history, I had the exact same one you originally pasted.
 * 3) The very problem with your approach to this issue becomes clear when you write, "The last version of the post is very conservatively written avoiding any personal comment." Exactly; Wikipedia is Not a place for personal comments. It is also uncalled for to add false statements in order to further your point of view, such as what you wrote regarding this being the "first time the EEOC has filed a lawsuit on behalf of the individual, despite hundreds of previous lawsuits [filed against Merrill]"
 * 4) You keep referring back to the words "reckless, intentional, and malice", yet I kept both "malice" and "reckless disregard" (the actual terms used) in the article and sourced them directly--unlike the first version.
 * 5) Again, the purpose of article talk pages is to allow other users to participate in discussions. Please make future comments on the appropriate page as this should not be a personal issue. I'm copying this thread there as well.--DMCer (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikify
DMCer: I've done a bunch of edits to the Bain & Company page, trying to tone down the language and adding a boatload of references. Can we take off the wikify tag yet? I'm not quite sure what else to do on this one, but don't want to remove the tag because I don't have the experience to do so. Elvira100 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice job! Feel free to remove tags anywhere when you think it's appropriate to do so! I've made some more improvements, but it looks good as far as sources/links/neutrality. Thanks.-DMCer (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Merrill Lynch bigotry story
I left your style mostly intact. I just need to hyperlink to Dr. Borumand's blog. I am going to add that plus name of some managers mentioned in the law suit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.31.212 (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop being hysterical and accusing others of being part of some conspiracy. Regarding the blog: This is from Wikipedia's Manual of Style, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." If this section uses the official documents this blog links to, there is no reason to still link to the blog. There is also no reason to assume this blog belongs to this "Majid Borumand", as it doesn't claim that anywhere. New York Times and Wall Street Journal sources, which I have included, are always more appropriate than a questionable blog with just one post.--DMCer (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Young Earth Creationism edit
I am fine with the language that you changed it to; I had just been involved in a little tiff over wanting to change "Some believe that Noah took the dinosaurs on the ark" to "They usually believe that Noah took the dinosaurs on the ark" because the other authors thought the latter was too "absolute". I don't know of any who deny the existence of dinosaurs (even though some fringe groups used to). standonbibleTalk! 19:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * True, as if there's a silent majority somewhere that refuse to acknowledge fossil-built re-creations of dinosaurs standing in museums. I welcome it if there's a source, but I don't see one coming...-- DMCer ™  22:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Merrill Lynch Page
There are certain words that have wiki links in that article that seem arbitrary and useless nonetheless. If someone does not know what/who is an Iranian he/she need not consult with Wiki. I think we need to remove those unnecessary links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NothingButTruth (talk • contribs) 18:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe they were very relevant to the context, as the legal term "malice" is worth linking to, as are the types of ethnicity that were allegedly being discriminated against; although the second instance of "Iranian" probably could go without a link. Users who know these things need not click on the links.-- DMCer ™  19:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

McKinsey
I've started adding in citations and references on McKinsey & Company, but it's a HUGE project. Lots of stuff on that page seems unverifiable right now. Any suggestions welcome. Thanks. Elvira100 (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didn't even see this comment! There must have been an edit right after yours. I'll head over to McKinsey now...- DMCer ™  09:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

US Subs
I don't even think the subs should be included at all because they aren't warships. They are either deep sea rescue vehicles or training subs, operated to teach anti-sub warfare. It's like counting Cessnas used for pilot training in our total of "military aircraft". Niteshift36 (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, actually, but it's hard to tell which of the other countries' subs are used for research/rescue, and which are used for military. Except maybe in the case of N. Korea, which I'm sure doesn't sure the 20 subs they have listed here for rescue/research missions, considering they have not nuclear technology employed yet.-- DMCer  ™  02:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Alt ! Image
Thanks for adding the alternative image of a true-color shot!  - Ohmpandya  We need to talk... ♦ contribs 15:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Caffé Lena
On second thought, you are correct, SPAC does not belong there. Should other coffee houses in NY state be listed? Bearian (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless they're directly related to Lena in some way, I don't think there's a need for them. For example, if Lena spawned a spinoff business that shared some history with the café, then I'd put it down in the "see also" section. As it stands now though, I think it's OK by itself.— DMCer  ™  19:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Re Cape St. Vincent FP Nom
Hi DMCer,

I have to say I agree with the comments made at the nomination page. I really think you should have put it up as a separate nom seeing as it's so different from the original. Even though it's getting a bit late now as people have commented and voted on the 'alt', I'd be inclined to withdraw 'your' alt image from that nomination, and nominate separately. Good luck, --jjron (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"unclear" on Joel Benjamin
You put an "unclear" tag on the chess game in the article Joel Benjamin. Is it the game notation that you find unclear, or something else? Bubba73 (talk), 20:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * At the top of the article (and most others that have chess moves), there is a line that says that the chess moves are given in algebraic notation. That article should help you understand the moves.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry, I missed that. I moved the algebraic notation tag down to that section to make it more noticeable.  Also, not to to be picky, but the source used for the moves now redirects to the domain's homepage. I checked it with the internet archive here, but it doesn't seem to contain the full list of moves in the article. Surely they're somewhere online...— DMCer  ™  04:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The WikiProject Chess normally uses the chess notation line at the top of the article, and it is in hundreds of articles. On the other hand, I can certainly see the reasonableness of putting it right before the moves.  However, many of the articles have the moves embedded in the text.  I'll check on a source of the moves.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oooo, nice source! Even better. :-)— DMCer ™  10:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Merrill Lynch civil rights violation
Following managers Yonathan Epelbaum, James Gatheral and Kishor Laud are implicated in the law suit by Federal governmnet. Their identity is pertinent to the story. When US Government files a law suit against a public company public has the right to know the details of the case. That is why I think it should be mentioned within the text of that segment.
 * I agree.— DMCer ™  20:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Charges of Malice and recklessness are against Merrill Lynch as a company not just those few individuals. Merrill Lynch is facing tens of millions of dollars in punitive charges. Evidence points to the fact that company tried to cover up the hate crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NothingButTruth (talk • contribs) 22:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

AIV Request
Thank you for making a report on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Brianga (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Far too much leeway for someone who's been warned 9 times, but understood. I'm upgrading a duplicate warning to make the message clear.— DMCer ™  09:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your Question on FPC
Technically, you did – but you would have never though of it without my false-color image. You uploaded the image 2 minutes before I was about to, so... I believe we should 'both' be part of the nominees? - I suppose that seems fair? Could you respond on my talk page? I'm the same guy – I had a username change. -  Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  22:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Cape vincent NASA.jpg

 * Thought I should forward this to you. You deserve it as well. -  Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  12:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Big Tent Revival
I noticed you edited Big Tent Revival's Page recently. It appears that you deleted the "Ex-Members" Section. If you did intentionally, how come? catoman@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.78.211 (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think you're confusing me with [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Tent_Revival&diff=181271327&oldid=181271130 this user], who is the one that removed the ex-members. My edit is on the right side [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Tent_Revival&diff=next&oldid=181271327 here], and came later. After doing a rudimentary check online, I've added them back to the article.— DMCer  ™  06:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

changing BTR entry
Thx for the reply. I'm new to wikipedia..and trying to learn the rules and navigation. Also, thx for adding the ex-members back. I'm number two on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.78.211 (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sweet! I still listen to BTR's early tracks. Good old days....— DMCer ™  09:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
For your little words on my talk page. I use that account to make small changes (mainly inserting my pictures into articles ;) ). I spend most of my time on Commons since I only contribute with photos.

Regards -- Blieusong (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Barrow, Alaska
I do not understand why you continue to try removing valid and useful external links on this web page, particularly when there is clearly opposition and there have been multiple requests for explanations of what you are thinking?

For example, you and a couple others do not like the external link to the commercial web page for the King Eider Hotel. It is, however, the *best* display of local photography available on the web. I have searched far and wide to find the best photography available, and that one site beats the rest, even if it is a commercial site. (And no I do *not* recommend that hotel as a place to stay. It is the last one on the list if you ask for a pointer.)

Another one that is mind boggling, is that you have twice removed the link to the Barrow Arctic Science Constorium homepage and replaced it with an (invalid) URL to their subpage about Barrow, which actually *is* inappropriate as an external link! There is very good reason to provide a link to the BASC homepage. There is no point at all in linking only to the BASC webpage's description of Barrow (that's what the wikipedia page on Barrow is for, and the BASC "about Barrow" page adds nothing useful).

Virtually all of the other links you remove are, like those above, there for a very specific reason. They are what people researching Barrow need to know about. You may not know what UIC is, etc etc, but that is why the links exist... so that others, such as yourself, can learn about what makes Barrow tick. For someone visiting, either for business or pleasure, those links are essential.

If you want a detailed description of the value of any one of those specific links, please ask. But please to do NOT remove them. Floyd Davidson (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Capital gains tax in the United States
Nice tables! -Crimson30 (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Terrorism Newsletter
Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 06:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi DMCer,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Victoria Crater, Cape Verde-Mars.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 9, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-06-09.  howcheng  {chat} 22:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

FNC
You have your answer now regarding FNC, hope you like it. :) Arzel (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Gymnast Infobox
Hello, DMCer. You are listed as a member of WikiProject Gymnastics, but the project is listed as inactive, so I am contacting you personally on your talk page.

I have been bold and created an infobox for gymnastics biographical articles. I would appreciate any and all feedback on it, including changes and corrections. I took the basic fields from the FIG profiles and the one on the Nastia Liukin article, as well as pulling ones from other athlete infoboxes. I tried to be as thorough as possible, but I'm sure that I've left some things out. :) I have put together some samples of how the infobox currently looks at User:Kolindigo/Gymnastics Infobox Test.

I would like to start implementing the infobox on gymnastics biographies in about a week to give it time to settle in and get the kinks knocked out before the Olympics. Please come by, take a look, and make any changes you think would help. Kolindigo (talk) 05:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.
By your remarks on the FNC discussion page, it is obvious you are a Republican/conservative. Finally, another conservative here who speak his/her mind and stands up to the obviously liberal admins. Thank you. I have had troubles with at least two of the admins who responded to your comment: Gamieliel and Blaxthos.PokeHomsar (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to List of countries by military expenditures
I reverted your revert – the changes were sourced. Lars T. (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thought the edit sequence looked odd, after browsing the untranslated document, I'll leave it.— DMCer ™  07:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

DeLay intro
hello DMCer :) I noticed ur "info too long" tag on the Tom DeLay article. While it is somewhat more detailed and longer than other intros, it meets the standards on length and content (albeit on the upper-end of normal) as I rd them in WP:Lead section. I wrote a response also on the article's Talk page. Unless u object, or someone else cares enough to post, I think we should remove the tag. thanks, Beansandveggies (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While length in and of itself wasn't too much of an issue, I thought the problem was in the trivial details stuffed in the intro ("trivial" may not be the right word, but when one considers Delay's entire life/work, they didn't quite seem fitting for the introduction). I see that work has been done to shorten it though, and it looks good to me. Thanks for the comments on the talk page.— DMCer  ™  21:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Article talk
I draw your attention to the existence of Talk:Young Earth creationism. It exists for a reason, namely to discuss changes to Young Earth creationism. Kindly use it when discussing those matters. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You were clearly editing as I was working on the article. Knowing this, I contacted you so you would be aware of my changes ASAP. So, while your concern is appreciated, I suggest you see WP:UNDO. Specifically, the part which states, "it is courteous to leave an explanation on the article's talk page OR on the talk page of the user, whose edit(s) you have reverted." (Emphasis mine.)— DMCer  ™  04:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Care to elaborate?
If you are not familiar with this essay I think you may find it informative -- Don't template the regulars. Regarding the reason why I draw your attention to that essay would you care to elaborate on the comment you left in your template message: User has been warned many times about removing sourced content w/o discussion.  Since I can't find the many instances in which I've received such warnings I'm a bit confused. Can you provide diffs and/or perhaps an explanation here? Please help me understand. My confusion also comes from the fact that I have never run across you before as far as I know. In this particular incident I reverted twice, along with at least one other editor of like mind about the newly added material. Another essay that is helpful here: WP:BRD. But regardless I also left a message on the talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations&diff=324673370&oldid=324667487]. That message was left a good hour before you decided to template me [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PelleSmith&diff=324687500&oldid=323526175] providing further confusion regarding your claim that my reversion was "w/o discussion". I would really appreciate some sort of explanation here as to why you left me this message and what you meant by it. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Since I know you have read this and clearly you have elected not to respond I will leave you with this quote regarding one of the many things which may constitute a "personal attack," taken directly from the relevant policy – WP:NPA: ''Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.'' Think twice before you start leaving accusations about someone's behavior on the Wiki. If you are not prepared to substantiate them then all you've done is provide evidence of your own poor behavior. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't assume that I've elected not to respond. I have a busy life outside Wikipedia, so you'll forgive me for not responding instantaneously. To your message, I've been trying to think about where I may have gotten the idea that you'd been warned many times. I can only assume that since I usually have over 75 tabs open in multiple browser windows (all various stages of editing/browsing article histories), I got your talk page history mixed up with your user (and one other user's) contributions, in that I was staring at a series of "blanked page" edit summaries and wrongly assumed your were blanking sections. That was my mistake, and while I don't believe it was appropriate to remove the section in question, please regard the template and edit summary an honest mistake. I would have instead posted a message on your talk page to discuss the removal.  ***  You said that "there is no direct connection with the organization in those accusations."  I would think that the founders of the organization = a connection to the organization.  You also stated that the sources were unreliable, when they weren't. If you said that the NEFA sources amounted to original research, rather than simply being "unreliable," then you would have had a point.  While simply blanking the entire section could be considered being bold, I don't think it was the best way to go about fixing the section.  Anyway, I fixed it today, and I believe my revisions have addressed the concerns of those involved. Thanks— DMCer  ™  05:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough I'll strike the assumption that you elected not to respond. What you have written is mostly original research, and yes many of the sources you are using are indeed unreliable on this subject, including NEFA, unless it is being used to source the opinion it is promoting and is properly attributed as such.  I have posted on the appropriate noticeboard for input on the OR issues.  Please see. No original research/Noticeboard.  I am happy to accept your apology for the mistaken template, but that is exactly why you should think twice before templating people, especially the regulars.  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all I didn't write the section, I merely changed the sources. I'd like to know exactly what your issue is with the sources (NYTimes, Fox, NY Sun, Dallas Morning News, etc.), perhaps you haven't looked at them again and are just assuming the NEFA ones are still the sole sources for much of the paragraph. Again, the 2 NEFA sources I've left in place are listed after mainstream news sources and are only there to provide a link to the document in question. The sentences would still have appropriate citations even if the NEFA sources were removed.— DMCer  ™  22:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You deleted my factual information about Mark Steyn
Under what pretext can you describe the factual information that I posted on 9 Nov 2009 as a "rant"? Italus (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You weren't discussing any constructive ways to improve the article, and came to vent about someone you see as an "Ignorance-peddler" (a label you used 4 times in your relatively short post). The talk pages are not general forums to attack or promote their subjects. Please see the Wikipedia policies I cited, namely WP:TPO and WP:RPA. Your edits disrupted the project and were unproductive.— DMCer  ™  01:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thanks
Thanks for your message. I did my best to update and add to the page. You did an excellent job with the page, and it looks real good. MOOOOOPS (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Robert Spencer
I attended the school in 1998, while Spencer was employed as a teacher there. Here is an article he wrote mentioning the school, and I believe one of my former classmates has a school picture that includes Spencer. I will try to find the photo and see if it can be used as a source The article is at http://www.napcis.org/desertblossoms.html (i'm new to Wikipedia, so not sure if this all shows up right. DrSuessJA (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Anita Dunn – Clarification requested
FYI: I request clarification for your comment on the talk page. Thanks -  Jwesley 78 06:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anita_Dunn&diff=329953727&oldid=329951437 here]. Thanks.— DMCer ™  23:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)