User talk:DMacks/Archive 5

Abdul Taib Mahmud
Thank you! :-) I don't know much about this guy and whether the corruption stuff is true, but this article seems to be very prone to vandalism. Maybe one should think about applying for a semi-protection so that IP-users can't edit it anymore. --DavidDCM (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Four Asian Tigers
Hi,

I think there's a misunderstanding here. The article does talk about the "entire" Republic of China (ROC), if by "entire" you mean the extent of effective control by the Republic of China as opposed to the People's Republic of China (PRC). Moreover, the anon editor that you reverted was simply restoring the status quo prior to a POV-pushing edit made by a pro-PRC editor who substituted the ROC national flag with that of the Chinese Taipei Olympic Team.

To be fair, as the article talks about economic rather than political entities, the appellation "Taiwan" is probably the more preferable, less ambiguous and more neutral term compared to "ROC". But I don't think you should have reverted to the flag of the Chinese Taipei Olympic Team regardless of which term we are using.

Best -- ran (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor has a long pattern of inappropriate edits and based on the ones I did recognize this was at least partially more inappropriate-ness. I was acting purely on the basis of the content-removal and word-change (because the topic is specifically the Taiwan-driven economy, and "Taiwan" is the term used in cited ref). I actually have no idea what the flag situation is, feel free to make it correct...annoying when a nugget of viable edit gets done as part of a larger apparent simple vandalism:( DMacks (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that the editor in question is a sockpuppet of User:Eeeeeewtw, who I believe might itself be a Nationalist sock. Apparently, this user has been using "throwaway" IP accounts ever since I tagged the primary account as a possible sockpuppet of User:Nationalist. He or she even took the trouble to make a personal attack against another editor on my talk page. Alpha77a (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I only recently got alerted to the ongoing problem in the Taiwan-vs-ROC article messes, so I don't know all the major long-term-problematic editors yet. Based on behavior, does seem reasonable. There are lots of anons from two distinct IP-spaces who are at least clones of each other if not actual socks. The IPs keep changing, so checkuser might be hard to nail down, but even so, WP:DUCK, and I'll indef Eeeeeewtw next time he's out-of-line even based on his own pattern of mis-behavior. Any ideas if Taiwanrox8 or others are named-account socks also? Would be great to have at least a few current accounts to cross-ref to boost the likelihood of getting a CU hit. DMacks (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Taiwanrox8 is almost certainly not a sockpuppet of User:Eeeeeewtw or User:Nationalist. User:Taiwanrox8's edits actually remove the expression "Republic of China" or "ROC" in favour of "Taiwan" (or some variation thereof), the exact opposite of what User:Eeeeeewtw and User:Nationalist like to do. Alpha77a (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I-210 or whatever he wants to call himself now
I gave him a final warning already:. Maybe it's time to indef? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll let him passively vanish as he says he's trying to do, but I'll indef +no-edit-talk if he tries to take parting shots beyond his existing incoherent manifesto-of-sorts (which I'm leaving alone...leave him his shovel should he want the hole any deeper. DMacks (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

John Lesch
I am new to this sort of thing. Do we deal with this sort of stuff as vandalism or COI? How far does he have to go to get banned for COI? Dolive21 (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll give him "once more". What I'm seeing is blockable as simple vandalism, and COI is just icing on that foul-tasting cake. Welcome to this side of wikipedia:/ DMacks (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hydrogen cyanide/CAS searchable
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Hydrogen cyanide/CAS searchable, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Test completed months ago

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mark Hurd (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello
this guy User:Taiwanrox8 have Vandalism a lot of article, i think you need block this guy, yhank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eeeeeewtw (talk • contribs) 02:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

DAB help
Noticed you're online... I'm trying to fix/create a dab page but forgot to move the original page (to keep its history) before turning it into a dab page. Game call should be temporarily deleted to allow for the move of Calling to that place (which is currently about game calls). Then please insert what I have for game call here into Game call, and what I had for calling here into Calling. Hope this makes sense. —Eustress talk 01:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I deleted the old Game call, moved Calling→Game call, and then imported this old revision of now-called Game call to Calling. That's right? I see you've already fixed the hatnotes on the now-not-generically-named page. DMacks (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! —Eustress talk 01:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

User page sabotaged
Someone posted something hateful on my page, Iunno who it was, but I'm assuming I should go to you if someone does something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DRUOX (talk • contribs) 03:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your userpage, you're welcome to watch for and undo any vandalism that happens there. If it becomes an ongoing problem, any admin can help you by blocking a problematic editor or preventing some users from editing your page. The case here appears to be a brand new editor making his first edits (and then he undid them himself). Those sorts of tests happen a lot...you could place a warning on his talkpage so he could (hopefully!) see the error in his ways. DMacks (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

free energy suppresion
hi there,

if the page is about pseudoscience, i'm sure you can add that category to it. otherwise, it would be good to categorize the link the way the article is categorized.

cheers

212.200.240.137 (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it is: Free energy suppression is in Category:Perpetual motion machines, which is a subcategory of Category:Pseudophysics. DMacks (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * that seems to be a mis categorization, as article doesn't talk much about perpetual motion machines, but about theories behind supposedly suppressed technologies. cheers.  212.200.240.137 (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reread the article. Most of the description and specific examples are various sorts of perpetual-motion machines. DMacks (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * i guess this will have to end with disagreement. while i think that the main focus of free energy suppression article is *energy suppression* which is a conspiracy theory, you seem to think that it is *free energy* (and further 'perpetual motion energy' which is pseudo-science). i did re-read the article, and stand by previous comment. cheers. 212.200.240.137 (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mountain Dew
Hey, I was just fixing it since it had been messed up by someone else! I changed it BACK to Mountain Dew from Mountain Jew! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.58.78 (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. This is the change you made. DMacks (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection of 2NE1
Hi. I understand that this page was deleted multiple times and protected because of notability issues, but they've been receiving a lot of (Korean) press attention lately, and their first single debuted today. About 45 articles from the past week discuss the new single (according to Google News), while general articles about them number over 200 in both Chinese and Korean media. As the protecting admin, would you be able to unprotect? Thanks in advance. SKS2K6 (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. As an add on to the above, I also ask if you would unprotect the article 2NE1. You probably protected it because it was not an official group when the page was made. Now, since they are official, I ask that you unprotect it. They have already gained much popularity, and if Wikipedia doesn't have an article on an extremely popular band, then there's something wrong. Thanks in advance. xojycyjox (talk) 5:340, 6 May 2009 (-6 GMT) —Preceding undated comment added 22:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC).


 * Unprotected. Make sure the article you write meets our minimum standards (WP:BAND especially). DMacks (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :)  You can check it out.  :P  SKS2K6 (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked editor at it again
Hi DMacks,

You will probably find that this user that you have been having some "conversation" with is also this user. Both have identified themselves as Lysdexia in edits from the first IP (hence the block) and now also here here. Even without the "self-identification", they have to be the same user, given the adversarial and arrogant attitude in edit summaries/talk pages, and the unusual mainspace edits (sheer, liquor etc.). Cheers, Freestyle-69 (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
You deserve a barnstar. Axl ¤  [Talk]  19:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Please be more careful when reverting alleged vandalism
This edit caused a lot of trouble and led to an editor being blocked. He was removing his own legal threats after being warned that this was not acceptable. You made it appear that he had not retracted this remark, and he was blocked for it. Please be more careful in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry. DMacks (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

In you spare time
I was wondering if you could do me the favor to go to my Talk page, and then come back here to your talk page and let me know what the heck AP (or whomever) is on about? I would be forever in your debt. .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  02:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like AP (see IP-tracking followup to his post to Loadmaster's talk-page). Per WP:NLT, AP would be completely prohibited from making any edits to WP at all, and they could be blindly reverted regardless of their merit. Per LM's comments though, AP's comments as usual don't even have merit. DMacks (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This appears to be someone who just won't be ignored. Thank you for your help!    .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.   03:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Grubbs Catalyst 2nd Generation.png
File:Grubbs Catalyst 2nd Generation.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Grubbs Catalyst 2nd Generation.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Grubbswatersolublecat.png is now available as Commons:File:Grubbswatersolublecat.png. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * File:SAM.png is now available as Commons:File:SAM (1).png. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Humayun Ahmed
Thanks. I guess I need to get to work on actually improving it now... Drmies (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh:) It's always interesting to see what non-chemistry things people do with a PhD in chemistry. DMacks (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is JonasanRat7. Thank you.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  06:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Attept to circumvent block
The editor has baypassed your block on Humayun Ahmed by creating the same deleted content under Bangla book by humayun ahmed. I have csd:vand on it but it may need monitoring. regards --Triwbe (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Flagged the site via XLinkBot:
 * DMacks (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pushed up to WP:BLACKLIST. DMacks (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pushed up to WP:BLACKLIST. DMacks (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Support in writing
I am not honestly sure how Wikipedia works with posting and writing and having members view your work. You deleted my information about my organization and I am not sure why. I was hoping you could give me some insight beyond telling me that this sight is not my personal web service, which I don't believe it is, I truly just want to share our project. Are you able to constructively assist me so I can repost and share our work? Please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.108.222 (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Who are you, what organization, and what page are you talking about? DMacks (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he is talking about Swagbucks   -Codenamecody  —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC).
 * I don't see any Swagbucks ever having existed. If someone tells me an actual specific page-name, I'll be happy to research further. DMacks (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Jean Pierre Mifsud Triganza
Could you please restore this article, which you deleted as an expired prod. User:Stew jones has presented evidence that this footballer played for the Maltese national team, and seems to be getting rather hot under the collar about the deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Restored pending consensus there to keep it. DMacks (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Dan Debicella Article
DMacks, we could use some moderation on the page Dan Debicella. He is a state politician, and both myself and an anti-Debicella partisan just go back and forth with edits. It was moderated once before by AlekseyFy, but the anti-Debicella partisan now wants to revert that language to one biased against the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * DMacks, please look into the full, EXTENSIVE history of this article. Orangeman2's intentions are NOT good. All attempts at good faith on my part have been stymied at every turn and I am exhausted. My only goal at this point is to prevent the article from being censored by a Debicella staffer, which is clearly what is going on here. If you think that my behavior is somehow more egregious than Orangeman2's, which you seem to based on the edits of each of our Talk pages, then I would respectfully submit that you have things completely backwards. This is an edit war that has been going on since last September and every attempt I have made to actually IMPROVE THE ARTICLE has been thwarted by this person who probably shouldn't even be editing the article in the first place due to Conflict of Interest issues. I'm not pretending to be an angel here, but I'm not just wantonly being a jerk either, there is a back story here and I would ask that you please just look at the whole picture before "taking sides". Also, any help with moderating the article itself would be great, whether from you or another editor. Bottom line is, after many months, I am done trying to compromise with someone who is paid to protect this guy's image. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the first "outing" that ever occurred was Orangeman2 accusing me of being someone named "Mike Brown" who I am not and have never met. I will stop with the identity accusations, although it is readily obvious from the amount of intimate knowledge that this person has of Debicella's rationales for even the most minor votes, which are covered NOWHERE in public sources, that this person works closely with the Senator. Also, who would be so zealous about keeping any and all new information off a State Senator's Wikipedia article? This started over 9 months ago when Orangeman2 (under an IP at the time) was automatically just reverting any and all edits to the article, until they were told by admins to stop. I'm using common sense here, based on a pattern of behavior, not just pulling things out of thin air. Like I said, my approach to this article is a recent phenomenon spawned my months of frustration. If I'm not allowed to "out" people, how should I go about reporting conflict of interest issues? I'm not too familiar with the inner workings of Wikipedia so any help is appreciated. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, I whole-heartedly reject the label of "anti-Debicella partisan" constantly thrown at me by this other user. I am trying to create a good article that includes BOTH sides. Apparently trying to include anything that reflects negatively at all on the Senator makes me "anti-Debicella". In fact, I have taken many "pro" and neutral items brought in by Orangeman2 and incorporated them into "my" versions, and even looked up additional sources, etc. The same courtesy has never been extended to me. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for going on and on here, but you have clearly hit a nerve and I am beyond fed up with this article. If you want evidence of where the GOOD FAITH is here just look at the edit history of the article itself. Who has been the one making major content improvements and cleaning up the article? And who has been the one blindly reverting and adding "explanations" of bills completely without sources? Just please look at the edit history. That's all I ask. Thank you. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, I have no idea the specifics and I don't really have time to moderate fully. My goal is to stamp out the edit-war, which neither of you are going to win and makes everyone angry and less willing to work towards consensus and so I looked at only at the most recent few comments by both of you. I do quite often see an otherwise more-rational editor can be pushed beyond his breaking point in these situations. Will try to look back at the article and history if I have a chance. I will end by saying that if you two keep edit-warring while discussing, I'll simply block both of you. DMacks (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thank you. Yeah, I'm pretty much at wit's end. I honestly want to see a good article, and I would be more than happy to work in concert with Orangeman2, as I have done many times in the past, if I felt their primary aim was to actually create a quality, balanced article, rather than simply have Debicella reflected in the most favorable light possible. Unfortunately, this is not the case and I find myself on a bit of a quixotic mission in maintaining the article. That said, I admit I'm not perfect and that some of my edits probably went overboard in the past. But the main thing is, I've always tried to do what's best for the article, not for me or for any political entities, and I'm still trying. I want the subject portrayed accurately and I believe the legitimate, sourced claims by supporters, detractors, and neutral parties alike, should be respected. 69.37.244.16 (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Who else but someone who campaigned vigorously against Debicella would take such an interest in this article? I am definitely a pro-Debicella partisan (not a staffer), but the above anonymous user feigns neutrality while trying to make the article read like a piece of Janice Andernen (Debicella's last opponent) campaign literature. (Including direct quotes). The article is being moderated now, but please do not take this person to be someone who edits Wikipedia regularly-- they are here for political purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi DMacks. I just fully protected this page for a month in response to a request at RFPP. I have no problem with you or anyone else undoing it earlier if things settle down. You are a kind soul - I think I would have blocked them both for 2 or 3 days the way they were going at it. I'll drop a note re: the protection on the article talk page as well. Take care, Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  04:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: PROD of Uday08
Yes, after rereading the article I have to agree with you. I have removed the prod tag and nominated WP:CSD. Thanks for the input! ERK talk 15:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this page still needed?
Found Beta-hydroxy1butyryl-CoA/layout-test while cleaning the uncategorized articles. You said in the talk page on 2008 that you'll delete this if it is no longer needed. I'm not familiar with the bug report about this article but I think you should take a look at it.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gone. Thanks for the reminder. DMacks (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 15:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

One Second After book review deletion
Please provide complete and specific details of the unambiguous copyright infringement you claim. The URL you provide is accessible only to patrons of the Alantic City NJ Library system.

"* (Deletion log); 01:13 . . DMacks (talk | contribs) deleted "One second after" (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://library.atlantic.city.lib.nj.us/index.php?option=com_collection&task=view&catid=14&id=1525&Itemid=818)"

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apportum (talk • contribs) 04:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted One second after per the copy-vio tag placed by User:7. You will want to check with him about this URL. However, I can easily find the same text on numerous other sites just by googling. And regardless of whether I can see the initially-claimed URL (do you know if I can or not?), a copyvio is a copyvio even if the original is not available to all for free. DMacks (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Investigating further, does the Atlantic City Public Library have permission to copy the amazon user reviews? Amazon's website clearly claims copyright on all material and prohibits republication. DMacks (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Resume discussion
News Corp also called... resume. You can resume here the argument "...other groups that are actually called Murdock Group...". Now the object is intelligible also for a poll. Thanks --Caceo (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Heritage Conservation Network
Hi.

I'm confused as to why entry has been deleted. I updated it with material that is not from Web site but in my own words.

I appreciate your insights.

Srparnes (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Srparnes


 * The bulk of the article prose (2 of 3 paragraphs) differed by less than a dozen words from the original. Copy'n'pasting and then changing a word here and there isn't a productive way to write an article that's really in your own words. The workshops list appears to be cut'n'pasted from here. So that leaves the intro...1 paragraph (about 10% by line-count) of the whole article is viable content. I have to say too, even if the intro were kept and the other material written from scratch, the article would still have probably been deleted due to lack of notability (see WP:GROUP for some guidelines). DMacks (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks,
For the sock block of the newest MascotGuy incarnation.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  06:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It's a sock-drawer I'm not very familiar with, so if there's any tagging or list of these that needs updating, please do or let me know where/what. DMacks (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Delta Epsilon Psi.
All material on Delta Epsilon Psi's page is taken from the Delta Epsilon Psi web page and/or derivative Chapter specific sites and other websites and events affiliated and hosted by Delta Epsilon Psi.

Junkyboy55 (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that, and that's why several editors have repeatedly removed it: including content taken from somewhere else is a copyright violation. DMacks (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Jesus music article
Thanks for stepping in DMacks. Actually, I was preparing to get in touch with dispute resolution when I saw your message on my talk page. I have no problem with adding a after the section on bands that I'm fairly certain don't belong in this category. My contention is that many of the bands and artists he wants to include actually belong in the Contemporary Christian music article since Jesus music is a specific window of artistry (just like surf music is to 60's rock - if the Beatles hadn't come along the entire genre of 60's rock would have been completely different, n'cest pas?) However, my biggest issue right now is with Walter adding obvious POV statements regarding the content of the music itself. As far as I understand it, giving ISBN numbers as references don't cut it to bolster a case especially when the reference is going to be biased in one direction anyway. I suppose the best solution to this specific problem is to rewrite the verbiage so that it is decidedly NPOV rather than the opposite. I'd love to hear your opinion (and please understand, I have no intentions whatsoever to turn this into an edit-war). SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Need your help
Hi there. I made some changes in the IIPM article but wanted your inputs on the same so wanted to request you to if possible visit the page and help me out. Tks Wifione (talk) 09:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The suspense is killing me!
I'd like to say that the reason was confidential but this edit summary is much more correct. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 04:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, your secret is safe with me. DMacks (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Re
As you were - Mike Beckham (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Support request regarding image copyright
I'm new to Wikipedia so sorry if my questions are a bit too obvious for the senior Wikipedia users. I contacted the author of an image of the actual Airbus 310 aircraft of the Yemenia Flight 626 and asked him if he could possibly let me use the image in Wikipedia and the article of the airplane's crash. He agreed to do us but requested that the original link to the photo is provided and that he gets full accreditation for the shot. My question is what kind of "copyright tag" should I use when I upload the image and use it the crash article. Thanks in advance. Gunner0095 (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Will check it out and follow up in a few hr. DMacks (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A favor
Hi there DMacks, I noticed you blocked for continued inappropriate page moves. I was wondering if you could delete Busta under G6 to make way to move Busta (disambiguation) back. I tried yesterday but Lil Lez kept removing my speedy tag. Thanks in advance. —  Σ xplicit  00:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My network connection keeps freezing right now. Maybe will be stable in a few hr and I'll try to reverse that mess. DMacks (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done Moved Busta (disambiguation) → Busta. DMacks (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Smile.png —  Σ xplicit  19:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Youth United
The ed. made numerous improvements in the proposed article, at User:Extolmonica/Youth United -- enough to cause me to change my view at Deletion Review to keep--you might want to check again--I'd like to know if you agree or disagree. DGG (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Your rv of William James Sidis
If an source clearly contradicts a definition is it still reliable? Read IQ and High IQ society and it will be more than obvious that maximum IQ per definition today is 195. Any estimate higher than this is also per definition of IQ false. So, I argue that my WP:SYNTH beats the used WP:V. --Ainali (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to include alternative info and/or qualify statements as "according to..." (i.e., present different positions from different sources), but as an editor, you can't make conclusions or do your own reasoning. WP:SYNTH never beats anything because WP:OR is prohibited as a core policy. I would also note that the exceptionally high IQ value is supported by several published books that do not appear to be self-published, so it meets WP:V enough to state it (with cite given). See also various discussions on Talk:William James Sidis, which lean towards stating (with whatever qualification or specific terminology needed) the claimed high value per cites. If there is an issue with the reliability of the cited works, the talk-page is a good place to work out an improved wording that clarifies that issue. DMacks (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am a bit confused here but are you saying that any source on Internet beats simple math? Did you look at the link I provided? Just punch in median 100 SD 15 and IQ (x1) 250. In results in a density of 1.2212453e-15, that is 1 in 9 007 199 454 524 001. That does not fit in to the World population. Type in 195 and 196 and see that the density is between 1.1995993e-10 and 7.7689299e-11 (1 in 5 422 117 250 and 1 in 12 871 785 598). So, by the very definition of IQ, there need to exist 9 007 199 454 524 001 people for an IQ of 250 to be achievable. Again, IQ is based on normal distribution and is not an absolute scale. --Ainali (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Published books are not "just any source on the internet". And there are numerous cited sources on the various IQ articles and mentioned in the Sidis discussions explaining why IQ isn't a well-defined measurement at the extremes (i.e., not simple probability distribution). DMacks (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixing of my edit to Death Erection (removing broken reference link)
Never thought to use way back machine, your comment suggested I should have used appropriate tagging to ask for help instead of removing the reference, what is the appropriate tag. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.204 (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * . See its documentation and WP:DEADLINK for more info. Thanks for noticing this one! DMacks (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Xinjiang
Hi DMacks. While reverting the edit war of User:Ohtx and User:Fuzbaby, you have also reverted this edit which was not part of the edit war or involved with the dispute. The Turkish language is totally irrelevant in Xinjiang and in China. It should be removed. Take care. Tajik (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not revert anything, I merely tried to stop the edit war by preventing edits by new/unestablished editors. Long-standing/established editors are welcome to continue editing and fix vandalism. I don't know anything about the topic itself, so I'm not taking a stand on which is the "correct" version and I'm not endorsing anything in the version as it stood when I protected it. DMacks (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Tajik, there is/was no edit war on that page; I was simply removing vandalism from a new user due to a recent news event. I'm sorry if I deleted something that you put in, and as the page is semi-protected you can still make whatever change you wanted. Fuzbaby (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Youth United
Hi, I request you to please see to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_July_1, I have made some contribution to this discussion. Regards Maihunggogoi (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Article is in main-space now, and looks fine to me. Good work! DMacks (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Chernetski
I'm confused. How much evidence is required to add something to wiki? And the book is an invalid document? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb-Gibbs (talk • contribs)
 * If you're claiming there is supression, you need a reliable cite that supports the claim that it is suppression of his ideas or devices. People die (even under unreported or sudden circumstances) and ideas get abandoned all the time...that's not suppression of them. The book-link gave me a page that said the book could not be displayed, which is why I said on the talk-page that need actual information about the book itself, not just a URL to the google-books copy of it. DMacks (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont have a problem open the URL each time. Extracts from it: "A death that we should say was very mysterious. Ed had become quite paranoid about being located". I will find the original document that prompted me to write this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb-Gibbs (talk • contribs) 19:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Schrödinger's cat at ANI
EVula's resolved comment in that section made me giggle, but your subsequent "resolved" comment made me snort coffee over my monitor. Bravo. ;) ~ mazca  talk 09:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Letterman article's
I have to admit that there is some truth to your acusation that I want to evade the discussion going on in the talk pages of the Letterman article. After reading the link you posted I decided to try to see if I can get a compromise edit of a few sentences. My view in posting the dispute to a larger forum was to put more eyes on the problem, and bring in a larger pool of editors. If the idea of a compromise edit is not accepted where do you think I should proceed? Should I even be pursuing this matter? Thanks for your help. Datacharge (talk) 07:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Getting more eyes is a good way to try to break deadlocks on editorial disputes (if and how much to include, possible alternate wordings), but Editor assistance/Requests is not the right venue for resolving disputes, merely for finding out how to do so. The dispute-resolution page mentions several ways to do that...WP:RFC is a good one. However, you'll want to avoid WP:FORUMSHOPping...trying to evade normal consensus/discussion definitely makes your position look weaker to an outsider trying to mediate. The dispute is already on admin radar due to apparent WP:SPA on the "include it" position. My gut is that given the current level of rational explanations based on content guidelines why not to include it vs lack of specific cites to back up claims claims of lasting/larger impact, you're fighting a decidedly up-hill battle. WP:CCC, so if and when this eventually does prove to be more important than just a flash-in-the-pan, might be worth re-pursuing. Unless a major topic is rapidly evolving and has serious impact, WP is better served by being a bit more deliberate and waiting for media frenzies to die down. DMacks (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for the advice. I hate the idea of something that was discussed in the media so much not having a single mention on Wikipedia.  I never realized that internal debates lead to these kinds of omissions, it really highlights the fact that while Wikipedia is an excellent tool it's no substitute for Google.  But I do think your right, it's really not worth the endless argument shifting consensus would require.  So I am taking your advice and giving up the attempt.  Thanks. Datacharge (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sari
Ah, I see. Thank you for the reversion.  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Not Another Teen Movie AGAIN (2003)
I felt that it fell under the category blatant hoax, and could therefore be deleted under G3. Let me know if you disagree, and I'll restore. decltype (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not opposed. Looking further, editor that created it has a history of problematic edits. DMacks (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Cobra move
Thanks for fixing the template and sorry for the problems. Seem like the move instructions aren't as clear as they used to be.--Flash176 (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Even the process, though "simpler", isn't really "clear" if you're used to how it had been previously. The bots aren't able to cope with things that aren't "perfectly done" yet:( DMacks (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Białystok Ghetto
Hey ya DM, how do I find out if an article's OTRS content has been cleared so I don't make the same mistake like I did on the Białystok Ghetto page? Cheers   Esradekan Gibb    "Klat" 09:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked WP:OTRS and they added the tag confirming it. My default assumption is "copyvio is copyvio"...I asked OTRS only because the talk-page made a specific and credible-sounding claim for it. DMacks (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sweet as, cheers for that.   Esradekan Gibb    "Klat" 00:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

False Scent//False scent
You left a message on my talk page about these articles and whether any more needs to be done, and asking for a status update. I don't know where you wanted me to put the update, so I am replying directly to you, but please copy this to the RFM or to my talk page if you think that better.

As far as I am concerned, I am just waiting for the transwiki then it can be closed. I don't know if it is worth waiting before closing, that is your call. I would like to see the result of the transwiki since if they don't transfer the entire article (e.g. only the bald definition), it may still have to stay and the same main point still exists, then.

I know it says the transwiki process is "automated" but I presume this means a human editor takes it and adds appropriate tags for Wiktionary (e.g. parts of speech, etymology, puts references in their form etc, link back to WP:en) and so I don't know what the result of that would be.

Of course if the entire False scent article gets transwiki'd then I will delete it (unless the transwiki does anyway) but I could see the situation where the bald definition gets translated but not the reference to Fowler. I have some problems with the Fowler article anyway (A Dictionary of Modern English Usage), but that will have to wait for another time.

Your call, I am happy either way, I just wanted to make it visible for discussion but nobody else seems particularly to care so I am confident to go ahead whatever I decide is best, I think? (e.g. if I decide a DAB page is best then I doubt anyone is going to complain if they haven't already.)

SimonTrew (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: RFC Bot flagging of broken requests
Thank you for the code, and the ability to read my code! &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 17:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Rob Levin
Please don't remove my contribution to the talk page on the Rob Levin article again. You might not like the content, but that doesn't give you the right to eliminate it from the talk page. 74.129.107.64 (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not stating an opinion. Please follow Talk page guidelines. DMacks (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Category move
Hi. I am not sure where to post this, but since you started the discussion, I thought I would bring it up here.

As discussed at Category talk:Human genes by chromosome, the consensus was that this category should be name Category:Genes by human chromosome. The rationale is that most of the pages that have been so categorized contain information not only about the human genes, but also the corresponding genes in other organisms.

Despite the above consensus, User:Cydebot has moved the old category Category:Genes by chromosome to Category:Human_genes_by_chromosome instead. Where can I request that this move be modified? Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
Thanks for your comments. I think those two things I deleted were totally silly and irrelevant and added nothing to the articles. If I write something to that effect in the comments when I delete it again, are you just going to go and revert it again? If so, I will drop it, since I'm not looking to get into a pissing match with a stranger online. But I believe that the deleted paragraphs are totally ignorant and unnecessary sentences that deserve to be deleted. 198.3.128.3 (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to start a discussion on the talk-page of the article to get others' input if you like. The purpose of article talk-pages is to discuss the article once it's clear there are conflicting ideas about what or how to include content. DMacks (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please revisit the [| discussion] I have added a rebuttal with extra references. I understand if you think I am overzealous, but I think if you look at all of my edits you will find I have contributed to other pages with the same topic with out linking back to Happy Endings? I though that was the point of wikipedia, write what you know (what can be referenced). I look forward to hearing what you think.You Can&#39;t Clap with One Hand (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)GiselleRI

Thanks
for warning Cmancmancman. I was just about to warn him until I saw what you did. Again, thanks! Cheers. Rascal the Peaceful (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Your warning regarding edits
The link I have been posting is for a new forum called the Knowledge Research Forum. It contains sub-forums where any individual can post original research on the topic - which cannot be posted on Wikipedia. It has always been accepted for appropriate forum links to be placed in the external links section of Wikipedia pages. So I believe your warning is unfounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.54.12 (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ELNO specifically contradicts your claim. Also, your site doesn't sound notable in its genre and you're spamming for the whole site, not adding specific links to specific parts of the site you claim are relevant. Feel free to seek third opinion. DMacks (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines you and Dougweller referred me to are subject to interpretation. It is clear that whenever administrators believe an external link to a forum is appropriate, it remains. You noted that I was linking to the entire forum (unacceptable), rather than linking to the appropriate area of the forum, which in this case would be the Philosophy forum. There are existing links to at least one other philosophy forum on a number of Wikipedia 'philosophy' pages. The only difference between that forum and the one I was linking to is the age of the forum and the number of existing posts. If I link directly to the Philosophy forum of the Knowledge Research Forum, I believe this should be acceptable. This forum contains no advertising, and is especially intended as a place where original research can be posted, which cannot be posted on Wikipedia. I respect your need to keep spam off Wikipedia, but linking to a forum where the applicable topic can be discussed and original research can be posted should not be considered a spam links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.54.12 (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your "only difference" sounds like a pretty big difference indeed when considering the value and acceptance of these types of sites. Note that my comment was multiple independent reasons...resolving the direct-link issue does not help compliance with WP:ELNO, which is a guideline that has strong consensus to follow and you don't seem to have compelling arguments to make an exception. DMacks (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for helping me my periodic table formatting polemic organized and hope you understand that I'm not trying to promote a personal POV but merely move from a trivial to more important considerations of the attributes proposed to be helpful to the cognizance of the intelligent user. I, like the several interested people, have memorized the periodic table, and am interested both in its listing of "discovered" and "potentially capable of being discovered" elements (as was Mendeleev) and don't think the table should be limited by someone's decision as to how many elements should be listed based on chemical considerations (or even physical considerations) if it seems logical and/or argumentative as to how many there or might be. And the IUPAC has evidently fouled up by trying to surround their limited existing table with restrictions which will have to be corrected. So What!! Well I suggest that there should be a caveat (probably on a talk page) saying that here are various ways of extending a periodic table chart and here they are and you take your pick. And let the best and most useful table prevail.WFPM (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)PS I was able to memorize the periodic table because I discovered that the individual chemical series can be broken down into the following order: Row 1 = 2; Row 2 = 2; Row 3 = 8 (equals 2+4 and 2); Row 4 = 8 (equals 2+4 and 2); Row 5 = 18 (equals 2+4+4 + 2+4 and 2) Row 6 = 18 (equals 2+4+4 + 2+4 and 2); Row 7 = 32 (equals 2+4+4+4 + 2+4+4 + 2+4 and 2); and Row 8 = 32 (equals 2+4+4+4 + 2+4+4 + 2+4 and 2). And the very last 2 are elements 119 and 120. So I'm pretty sure that elements 119 and 120 belong to the position as shown in the Janet periodic periodic table.WFPM (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC) And would you believe that Row 9 will be 50 (equals 2+4+4+4+4 + 2+4+4+4 + 2+4+4 + 2+4 and 2). I hope so. And I think you might find some chemical significance related to the series breakdown. And I would appreciate your comments re this subject matter before your archive bot archives it into forgetfulness, because I'm very interested in this subject and I'm assuming you are too.WFPM (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
For protecting Aitias' talk page. I've blocked all the IPs. It's sad someone would want to vandalize like that. Thanks. Acalamari 18:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Listenership sourcing issues and incorrectness.
The information pertaining to listership is incorrect and sourced from a blog. The correct information is found at the Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs

Which indicates that his actual listenership is 8.25 million and he is placed 4th behind Glen Beck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tseay11 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's nice, but why are you telling me this? You'll have to be very specific about what action of mine you are discussing. DMacks (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

RE:
Anytime;)And you are right--they are out in full force today. I have over 700 edits in reverts(including warning templates) today. I haven't seen vandalism this strong before. Since I was free today...I pretty much sat at my computer reverting vandalism;) Schnitzel MannGreek. 22:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Jerkin'
hi, I noticed you were on the deletion logs for this page.. it seems to be salted. I'm not sure if you know but there has been some local coverage in the LA Weekly about this "trend", and it appears there is an interest in this article to exist. Can you restore the article so sources can be added and it can be brought up to standards? thanks riffic (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like User:King of Hearts took care of it. Glad we can have an actual article now rather than a pile of childish nonsense there! DMacks (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Stitches Sportswear- Deleted Page
Hi DMacks,

I wanted to see if I could discuss with you not having our page removed. I was trying to introduce my new sports apparel company and I was removed for advertising. Other companies are on here as well, so I was wondering why I am being removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stitches Sportswear LLC (talk • contribs) 06:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for advertising (WP:SPAM) or for pages about non-notable companies (WP:CORP); I deleted User:Stitches Sportswear LLC under WP:CSD (it would also fail WP:CSD if it were an actual article instead of userpage)--see WP:USERPAGE guidelines. (sorry for all the jargon/acronyms there...you can follow the links to see what they mean). DMacks (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

So for example, Under Armour could have a page but we cant?? Because we make 500,000 a year and they make millions? I am confused. Other companies talk about their background and who they market and work with. What rules do I have to follow to be able to have my company on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stitches Sportswear LLC (talk • contribs) 06:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, an article about a company needs to explain something about how the company is notable, using this guideline.DMacks (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyway you can take the page you deleted and look through it and help me edit the material in it so we can keep it on Wikipedia. I am new to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stitches Sportswear LLC (talk • contribs) 07:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about your company, so I'll again again refer you to WP:CORP, which gives you very specific guidelines about what makes a company notable enough to merit an article: "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." Has your company reached that level yet, or do you need to wait a while for the company to grow and get noticed (and written about!) by others before it's ready for an article? Also, sometimes it's hard to judge one's own company: a conflict of interest makes it hard to write a viable, objective article that doesn't come across sounding like an advertisement. DMacks (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A NASCAR website mentioned us as a sponsor as well as local radio stations in the southern GA area for our donations to boys and girls clubs throughout the country. These may not be the sources Wikipedia is looking for but I can assure you our company works with several professional athletes, we just dont have people writting about us, which is fine. Our company is on the rise and Skechers filed a suit against us for having our logos conflict with their marketing abilities. I guess we can try back when someone cares to write about us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stitches Sportswear LLC (talk • contribs) 07:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have some reliable source (a URL, bibliographic info for a newspaper mention, etc.) about those types of things, that's enough to get going--at that point I would let it stay pending a wider discussion among editors. The real issue is that wikipedia is explicitly only for things that have already been reported elsewhere, so things need to be sourced back to someone else's writings. It's really (some would say discouragingly:( difficult for new companies to get their article started. I'm going off-line now, will be back tomorrow, can discuss more if you like. DMacks (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Revisionist Histories
I must disagree with your comment -- the reason as to why you felt it necessary to undo my comment on the Periodic Table page regarding the instability of neutral elements for Z>83. You noted: "that's not that interesting:) At some point, we pass the point of stability, so *some* element has to be it. Nothing overtly special about Bi".

This is a purely revisionist mind-set. The fact that "some element has to be it" is the point. It is not a comment made with regards to any particularly significance of bismuth as an element, but the fact that there is a "point of stability" which is "passed" between 83<Z<84. This is significant, and not a very commonly known fact about the periodic table of elements. It is our responsibility, as members of the scientific community, to convey simple facts like this to the general public. It is not sufficient to say that there is some point at which stability is no longer possible. We must then explain that point, and even then, a person may simply shrug his shoulders and move on not knowing that this point is passed between 83 and 84. I am content to post a "pedestrian" sign at bismuth that says "here is the end of the road for stable, electrically neutral, elements". Many periodic tables also include this fact by noting that two elements of atomic number lower than 83 are not stable, and the entire string of elements above 83 are shown to be instable. Such periodic tables usually indicate this with some symbol that is either filled or unfilled. If authors and periodic table printers feel it is "interesting"-enough to include for the public to see, I see no justification to have such a fact removed from the public eye just because someone finds it uninteresting.

The comment I wrote may not be of interest to you, but to remove it because you do not find it interesting is purely self-serving and at worst a bad revisionist approach to Wikipedia. This fact about the elements is not very well-known, particularly to undergraduates of any scientific field (particularly Chemistry. It is in fact, a worthy landmark on the periodic table just as much the violation of Hund's rule at Z=24 and Z=29 for chromium and copper respectively (half-filled, low-lying s-shells) -- among other examples. The whole concept of orbitals (1s, 2s, 2p, 3s...etc) may be inherently wrong, and these are basic, fundamental facts about the elements -- which you apparently find uninteresting? How can we, as a scientific community, fail to report a fact to the public (no matter how obscure)... or as J.J. Thomson noted:

"No fact discovered about the atom can be trivial, nor fail to accelerate the progress of physical science, for the greater part of natural philosophy is the outcome of the structure and mechanism of the atom."

I was quite pleased to discover this fact on my own a few years ago!!!! First, in my doctoral research on electrostatics. Then, confirmed in a textbook.

TJ LaFave 02:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjlafave (talk • contribs)
 * "It is interesting" is a WP:WEASEL phrase, even worse than my claim that it isn't interesting because there's no explanation of this subjective claim. The text you wrote included two elements beyond Bi, so "Bi is the highest something" isn't even true on its face, so you need a specific explanation why Bi is special (and those are truly exceptions to some rule). The idea of an island of stability really is important, but the idea of "Bi is significant because it's highest in that region" only makes sense if you clearly define why the region itself is clearly defined, etc. I think the important and interesting thing actually is the island--there's lots of important science involving it. We actually have a whole article devoted to the island of stability. But the elements that happen to delineate it are interesting in relation to the island, not in relation to the current layout of the periodic table we use (it's not part of the PT history, electronic rationale, periodic trends, etc.) so it's fairly off-topic for the PT article. DMacks (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect you were a bit irked by the phrasing I happened to use. I admit, I hadn't reviewed my comment before posting a reply to your revision here (I didn't realize that I had written "interesting" in the comment -- nor that is a "weasel" phrase. Perhaps it because I started using Wikipedia a few days ago.) If it is a weasel phrase, it would have been more useful to note so, rather than remove the statement entirely and state that it's "not that interesting". I certainly must, however, disagree that a weasel phrase is a greater offense than having a statement removed by a user (moreso, an administrator) who chooses to characterize the statement as not being interesting. Such revisionist thinking is part of why nearly every scientist today believes (if not insists or demands) that a quantum mechanical interpretation of all things small is essentially demanded by Nature. This selective history is not science. I had wanted to cite the island of stability -- but much moreso the sea of instability. However, on the island of stability page is a comment about the "sea of severe instability" -- such a rare phrase (google yields only 6 results when quoted exactly, one being wikipedia, and at least three others being posts by users on yahoo). This part of the sea of instability, I think, holds many more clues as to the cause of instability beginning with Z=84 than the island of stability. In fact, in my work, one finds similar features of the sea of severe instability in the vicinity of 43 and 61. These features are not obvious in other work. Furthermore, these landmarks at 43, 61 and 83 are part of the periodicity of Nature. This is why I may have inadvertently used the word "interesting" in my posted text -- to draw attention to the fact that there are indeed unstable elements.


 * I also must beg to differ in that the post was not "fairly off-topic for the PT article" as you claim. Many (if not all) periodic tables that list the atomic mass of each element cite the mass of the most stable isotope of unstable elements instead, printing the mass value in parentheses. See as an example. Other periodic tables show the atomic numbers of unstable elements with open-face text. Still others indicate this fact with an asterisk or other symbol. Pointing out this fact, at face value, begs a reader's question, "Why?" "Why are these elements unstable?" "Why is it that when you put just so many protons in the nucleus of an atom it becomes unstable?"


 * Simply removing a pertinent comment for personal pedantic reasons is bad science. --TJ LaFave 13:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjlafave (talk • contribs)
 * Content looks better now. I assume you realize how important it is to be objective in science...indeed "interesting" is what tipped me off (as well as citing such an idea to an entire undergrad physics text, if I recall Halliday correctly). Careful with presuming my perspective ("revisionist"). Again I say that WP is huge and we have enough pages to cover each aspect of a topic...if it's not within the scope of the PT as currently constructed (i.e., periodicity/trends or the origins of the current layout), there's probably some other page where the content belongs instead. Science always raises questions, but the beauty of an encyclopedia (and especially a highly-interlinked one such as WP) is that you can jump to or search for a secondary page about whatever one finds intersting or curious and learn specifically about it. We don't need to have a single page about all aspects of everything related to a major topic. If a secondary page is missing something or is incomplete, would be great to get it improved so that readers specifically interested in the island of stability can learn about it properly and more completely. DMacks (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Soft redirect
You done with 1,4-dichlorobenzene? Rich Farmbrough, 21:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Well, the bug is still present, but it's been demonstrated well enough I guess. I re-direct-redirected. DMacks (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for your help on Kareena Kapoor's article. I really appreciate it. :) Regards --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 18:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! DMacks (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Commons
Hi DMacks. There might be some of your images that would benefit from being transferred to Commons. --Leyo 06:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Amino acid GAR notice
Amino acid has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Humorous reply provided A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection for Robert Pattinson
Can't the article go under some sort of probation?  • S • C  • A • R  • C • E •   22:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is an ongoing problem with throw-away registered accounts. That means semi-protection doesn't block it and 0RR or other zero-tolerance/blocking of accounts won't stamp out the problem either. It's based on Twitter rumor or other silliness, so likely blow over in a few days or so, and we can knock down the protection again. But at this time, evidence is that nothing less than full-prot would stop this wave of BLP vandalism. DMacks (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Cut'n'paste page-move
Thank you for correcting my edit, I totally forgot that we can move pages and there is no need to create a whole new page.  ■ MMXX  talk  06:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

hi, I nominated Ergogenic aid for speedy deletion.
Best wishes, Rich (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No evidence of that action per article history. DMacks (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help with 79.24.91.199. Don't know where that guy came from!?  Chimpanzee  - User | Talk | Contribs 07:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was a weird one! DMacks (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Lil Lez returns
And I have initiated a sockpuppetry case. Just thought I'd let you know, in case you're interested. —  Σ  xplicit 03:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I nuked a bunch more of her crap. If another sock appears, CU can bring down some heavier hammers. DMacks (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here we go again. —  Σ  xplicit 04:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ayup, and kill't. Thanks again for staying on top of this...guess we'll see what happens in a month:/ DMacks (talk) 06:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Might want to keep an eye on . Although checkuser didn't bring it up and the account has been editing since June, editing patterns are a bit like Lil Lez. I'm not fully convinced it's Lil Lez though; only time will tell. —  Σ  xplicit 04:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's only a half-WP:DUCK. Got a CU link? DMacks (talk) 07:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The last sock case above verified that YesNoJoe was Lil Lez, but brought up no other accounts even though HINSTAMAN has been around before then. I'm still not entirely sure this new one is Lil Lez... but the uncanny similarities leave me uncomfortable. I wondering if you could take a look at File:T.I. - Dead and Gone.jpg and check to see if left the same type of content on the file that HINSTAMAN has done. If they are, I'd be more convinced that this is Lil Lez; otherwise, back to square one. —  Σ  xplicit  00:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 800-Thug's edits to that file are not Windows pathnames (HINSTAMAN's edits). Oh well. DMacks (talk) 05:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gah, back to square one it is. —  Σ  xplicit 05:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)