User talk:DMacks/Archive 2

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5


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

iGuard spam

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

Search Amigo

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

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

Your RFA was successful

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

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

Deleting an entry Wikipedia is supposedly launching themselves?

Some journalists are saying Wikipedia itself is going to launch a "human search engine", yet Wikipedia wants to delete the entry. Wow. Is there more to all this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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


Why did you delete the topic of my new religion?

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


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

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

Kermit picture

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

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

Blu-ray disc

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

I'd rather not try to explain Blu-ray related information to other people and then having them notice "interesting", but irrelevant pictures in an article related to home entertainment. (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

Your Recent Reject of an AIV Report

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

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

The block of User:Epeabody

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

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


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

James Stacy Barbour

Dear DMacks,

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

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

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

Bloodrayne Protection

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

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

New Vandal to BloodRayne

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

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

Critical Review

moved to Talk:Critical Review (Brown University) DMacks (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Pseudonym MOS issue you raised

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

Sourcing and damage to Wikipedia

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

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

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

Happy Festivus!

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

DMacks (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

songs and other speedies

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

Robben Van Winkle is certainly a speedy as non-notable, but you deleted it as nonsense.
Ren Zhang is a undoubtable copyvio of [1] and [2],as indicated by another ed., but you deleted it as spam. If it hadn't been entirely copyvio, the spam could probably have been fixed by removing the initial part, so copyvio would have been the right reason. (& its usually the better reason when present in any case, since it it really incontestable)

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

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

Advanced Packaging Tool

Information.svg Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Advanced Packaging Tool, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. In addition, the information that was deleted was notable enough for inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I direct your attention to where I wrote "again remove non-notable trivia" in the edit summary for my edit. By all means continue the discussion about this very piece of content started long ago on the article Talk page. DMacks (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's Academic

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

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

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

Regarding Fluoride

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

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

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

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

Yay. The ozone is fixed!

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

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


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


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

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

User talk:Sirgeoph

Hey DMacks,

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


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

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

Radio 10 (BBC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pakistan Naval College

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

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

COinS and nbsp on the Cite_journal template

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

Plain Language Commission

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

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

Could you explain your strange deletion behavior?

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

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

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


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

Taunting the PHYSICS MAGAZINE (homework) guy

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

Deletion of iitjobs

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

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

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

I have clarified my points,please have a look.


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

Distance and My Demons

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

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


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

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

Molecular modellling

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

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

Re: Spam on Walter Lewin and related pages

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

Our friend still isn't getting the message and has been back at it again today, so I have submitted a blacklist request [3]. Hopefully if it goes through that should save us from having to waste time on it. SFC9394 (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

barrons cafe page

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

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

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

Warning Users

Why did you bypass step three and go directly to step four in warning this user? [4]. Happy Editing, Dustitalk to me 18:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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

DMacks, I could use your help regarding an attack page

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

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

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

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

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

Ken Hovind Copyrighted Image

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

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


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

re: Baltimore Hebrew University

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

Cartoon Network

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

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

deletion of 'Cinema Prague'

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion of "Rocco Settonni"


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

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

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


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

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

Sources to make entered person valid:

 - Life long struggles of life Rocco's father suffered

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

 - Official programs Rocco is involved in to make credibility.

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

David Weber‎

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

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

Installment sale whatever deletion

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

ICE Culinary Deleton

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

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

Ragnar Godthab

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

Groton School

Mr. Macks,

Thought you'd be interested in the MA Supreme Court ruling re: Groton abuse case. This citing lays out the case in a complete manner. Clearly, Empacherc 12 (who keeps editing this section and you) prefers a spun version of the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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

Formatting the texts within quotation template

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

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


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

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

Alprazolam vandalism

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

Just to understand why...

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

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


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

Love That Dog

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

It's back. Please add those refs ASAP! DMacks (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added the references[5] and will try to flesh out the article a bit. Guest9999 (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of BIT page

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

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


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

I would appreciate some feedback ...

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

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

"mental health" at the reference desk

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

Upmerge of Category

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

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

Stop Vandalisining CBSE

You are removing links from CBSE. What is your contribution to this article ? Do you know something about CBSE? Stop vandalism on this article.

I know about WP:EL, and I'm an administrator who was called in to try to stop the spam problem you are having on that page. DMacks (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Do not take undue advantage

If you have so much knowledge then why are you again and again reverting link to which has 'zero' material and has only ad units? Is it not spamming by you? Check this site and then comment on your act. Moreover do you know the official website of CBSE? I think NO. It is —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixing a link is acceptable (and the .nic one does look better...thanks!). However, revert-warring and removing lots of other material along with that change is not. In a blind edit-war when you don't explain what/why you are changing something, it's quite possible that an admin will lock the page in a form that you hate. That's why it's important to get consensus and use edit summaries. DMacks (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Teaming against a correct move

The people who called you for help were only doing one single thing reverting link to They were editing only for sake of editing or they were taking undue advantage of their better knowledge of wikipedia and spamming. The site(in addition to official website) to which I linked a few days earlier provides a lot of free material about CBSE free of cost and most of the material is new and available only on that site. Is that spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, blind edit-warring is never the correct solution--it makes everyone look bad, and it especially can make especially anonymous editors look like spammers. Saying why one makes a change is the right way to do things, otherwise it all looks like personal preference instead of an objective improvement. DMacks (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Central Board of Secondary Education link

I goofed.

After spending hours putting together Talk:Central Board of Secondary Education/Spam and listing domains at WikiProject Spam I screwed up and left in the spammy link by mistake, not the official I am glad this error got corrected and I am sorry for the mistake. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 17:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries! I only came in late to the game on this one, took a while to dig through the layers of obvious messes before looking at what the link "should" be. DMacks (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


Does Talk:Fangoria (magazine) not also need to be moved (to Talk:Fangoria)? --Sugarbutty 19:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, yeah thanks. Fixed. DMacks (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


As I have undestood from discussions on this page you have blacklisted website even when it contains original content and is free. I have seen a large no. of articles on wikipedia and they contain relevant links then why this site was blacklisted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AboutCBSE (talkcontribs) 08:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have not blacklisted that site. However, I do not see how it meets WP:EL and I do see how that (or at least similar-sounding sites) have been spammed widely, so there would be a lot of inertia to overcome to prove that this site is worth including. DMacks (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


I was messing around with my monobook page and the Wikibreak enforcer, and thought that it would run on Wiki time, not my actual time, and am now in an enforced wikibreak. Can you help me out please? The link to my page is User:Dustihowe/monobook.js. Thanks!! Dustihowe2 (talk) 06:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed the end-time to be 2007 instead of 2008, so you should be un-enforced. Please confirm, and post here under User:Dustihowe ASAP to confirm that it worked and that you are indeed the same account...I'll re-set it to 2008 in 15 minutes if I don't hear back by then. DMacks (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you :D Dusticomplain/compliment 06:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


If I appear impolite, please accept my apologies --Samuel Pepys (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Chemical Reaction (artscene group) Deletion

You deleted the article for Chemical Reaction (artscene group) on June 13, 2008 (Friday). I am looking for the AfD discussion for this article. The search did not bring anything up. I would like to look at the discussion and then decide, if I start a deletion review. The article existed a long time and was edited by multiple good editors. Please let me know. Thanks --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 21:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It was tagged {{db|doesn't show the importance of the subject plus no WP:RS seem to exist}}. After reading it, I concurred that it didn't sound overtly notable and there there was no assertion of real notability in the article nor in the cited ref, so I speedy-deleted it as a non-notable group. The page did exist for a long time, and there was a discussion on its talk page a bit related to its notability that never went beyond someone saying (essentially, per my reading) "it is well-known in certain underground or formerly-existing circles", which is not a claim of notability in the WP sense. A previous prod (for lack of cited notability) was removed with claims of it being notable and adding a ref, but again the claim was just "it's notable" and the ref didn't make any obvious claim of notability either. If you think there is actual citable notability (i.e., that the page could be made viable, I'd be happy to undelete it (or undelete it into your user-space so you can work on it a few days without the immediacy of deletion-tagging). Alternately, file for review and it might come back long enough to go to AfD. DMacks (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I did not see the addition of the "db" template, even though I have the page on my watch list. I didn't had much time to spent at Wikipedia recently and only glimpse at the page changes on my watch-list. I must have overlooked it. There is a lot more to say on that and I obviously disagree with the deletion.
So yes, Could you please undelete it? I would not put it into the user-space though. You can mark the article for deletion by adding the AFD template, if you like to. There will be at least the chance for some debate and feedback before a final decision is made about the fate of the article. Also if you don't add an AFD template, I will have another look at the article and tweak and see what I can do, to improve on the things that it is lagging. Thanks. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 02:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

:network crappy...will deal with tomorrow. d

Okay, it's back with an AfD that essentially states "could be notable, but need specific claim/RS to support". DMacks (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that will work --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 16:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for catching and fixing the protection on User talk: Not sure how I missed that amongst all the other maintenance I did on that page! --Kralizec! (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

dogma free america

Can you check the talk page. I think the number of notable guests the podcast has interviewed should qualify it as a notable. If you agree, can you unlock the page for editing? Thanks. Mindme (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Strongarm article

I couldn't even reply back. This article was deleted by the wrong reasons. This band totally indicates importance/significance.

What links there:

--Kmaster (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There was not a word in the article asserting anything of notability in the Wikipedia sense It doesn't matter if the band is "notable" in that many people care about it or like it...there is a very technical definition of "notability" here and it needs to be stated explicitly in the article. DMacks (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
What you excatly mean with "not a word in the article asserting anything of"? It is a stub, like any other band article, it started from the basics, name, genre, location, members, discrography and active years. And I have reliable web sources for them.
>>It doesn't matter if the band is "notable" in that many people care about it or like it...
It does matter : "Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with it." WP:NOTE --Kmaster (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it was a stub that didn't assert notability. The basics of its existence are not in doubt. There needs to be a claim of notability. There may be a correlation between fame/etc and Wikipedia notability. But that's irrelevant too, the article didn't even make a claim of notability in the common-use (fame/etc) sense (it said it was "influential", which is not useful...every band describes itself as "influential", "popular", etc). The specific requirement to avoid speedy-deletion of an article is that the article must "give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." Who/what did it influence--perhaps it was the key influence for some specific major act, or the original band for someone who went on to become famous in his own right? See WP:BAND for more specific guidelines. DMacks (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
You are basing you arguements on a peacock. I only wrote that because I have read many interviews of hardcore punks bands, citing Strongarm as an big influence. Heh, I thought, "I'm going to have trouble with that word" but I didn't think it would be the reason of a deletion.
>>the article didn't even make a claim of notability in the common-use (fame/etc)
But you have just said "It doesn't matter if the band is "notable" in that many people care about it or like it". Oh well, I'm not going to take that as an arguement. But I can give the article the "notability needed" with reliable sources.--Kmaster (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll undelete it to give you a few minutes to add some statement of notability to the article. DMacks (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Okay, Strongarm (band) is back. Will check it again in a few hours. DMacks (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll try to improve it now.--Kmaster (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Test Cricketers

All test cricketers are notable by wikipedia's definition because they played their sport at the highest level. Please read the guidelines. Don't delete perfectly legitimate articles in future. Nick mallory (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. DMacks (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's alright. No problem. Nick mallory (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

IIPM - thanks

Thanks for protecting The Indian Institute of Planning and Management. I was in the middle of cleaning up the citation formatting when User:Newsexpress came along and started revert-warring. Unfortunately now I can't continue.

The article's talk page shows a consensus in favor of indefinite protection. If you have not set it that way, please consider it. That's the only way we'll be able to get the sockpuppets to stop warring and start discussing. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! I forget the appropriate penance for accidentally locking at the right version though...only-bad-beer for a week? DMacks (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Cheesy" user page link to personal website

Am I not allowed to link to my PERSONAL website on my PERSONAL user page? Cheesy (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I revived it. Please make the context clear ASAP (user-pages are not immune to WP standards of blatant advertising or extlink-farming). DMacks (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Cheesy (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

IIPM lock protect

Hi, you've locked the IIPM page on Wiki. It'll be nice if you can put a tag on top of the page that informs users that the page is edit protected because of edit warring and that Wiki does not support or reject the current version (or whichever way the tag is supposed to be). Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. However, I'm actually comfortable endorsing the current form of the page, as it appears to be the consensus of all those who have participated in constructive editing and discussion lately. The talk page even singles you out as one of the trouble-makers, making many edits against consensus, removing cited material, failing to explain controversial edits, etc. DMacks (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the tag on top of the IIPM page. With respect to the issues you've raised, perhaps the following might points might be helpful.
  • 1. I have no issues with you endorsing the current form of the page in thought. Though I'm unsure about how, as an administrator, you'll use your professional power to put a tag on the IIPM page about Wiki endorsing the contents.
  • 2. If you have time, you could see my past discussions (some months back) with the generally acerbic Mr. Makrand Joshi and the amusingly & suggestively named Mr.PonyTailStripper (named perhaps after the Dean of IIPM, who has a pony tail). My past discussions with them have left me with less confidence on their discussion powers. I don't wish to be negative, but in those past discussions (if you can, do please go through them), apart from repetitively arguing a point ad nauseum, these two have not constructively suggested changes. But of course, the past discussions might not be a good pointer to the current discussion pattern. So you might have a point...
  • 3. Despite these points, I will have no personal issues even if you block my account or revert my edits :) As an administrator, I'm sure you have the power of doing that in case you desire.
But really, thanks for the tag. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Mrinal, a few points

1. You don't need to copy-paste whole sections of talk-pages. Providing links to the relevant sections should be enough.
2. All you have pointed out in my case is one instance of being auto-blocked for the WP:3RR. Given how much sock-puppet activity takes place on this page, I am sure others will understand the reason behind that instance. I have not made the same mistake again.
3. On what basis do you characterize me as generally acerbic? I have tried to have discussions with you even in the past, but to no avail. Any discussions we have had, I have always cited wiki policy. I have at no point been disrespectful. If you feel that my "discussion powers" are questionable, please provide evidence from talk archives that makes you feel so.
4. Regardless of disagreements, the spirit behind constructive editing is to engage in discussions. I don't think it is appropriate to refuse to discuss something with a willing fellow-editor, especially since the fellow-editor has not indulged in any personal attacks.
5. I am the one who has been issued death-threats by people wanting to white-wash this page as you can see from my talk page. Those threatening me have even been banned as a result. In spite of those distasteful threats, I have always wanted to engage in discussions. I hope you will agree to do so too. None of us are going away anywhere, and refusing to discuss edits based on past grudges is just not done. Makrandjoshi (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Mrinal, here are the last four discussions we have had that I dug up from the IIPM talk page. Please point out what exactly it is that makes you doubt my discussion skills? I have been utterly respectful and not acerbic in any way.

I hope you can back up the accusations or insinuations you have made about me. I have always been in favor of discussing edits. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Makrand, thanks for the replies. I appreciate the points you've written. Let's wish our discussions continue in this context and with the sentiment we currently have (which is generally positive). Again, thanks for the replies. They're appreciated. My best regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)