User talk:DMacks

Disruptive IP(s)

I saw that you temporarily banned User talk:65.51.122.131 for disruptive edits. Based on this edit (which was an obsessive edit the above IP made repeatedly such as here), it appears this same person has now moved to User talk:69.249.252.199. Strikehold (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the time-lag and network difference, and ony single-edit by the new IP, not sure it's not just some copycat rather than same person. Please keep an eye on the article and revert/warn/file block/protection request if it becomes ongoing problem. DMacks (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll do that. Thanks for looking into things. Strikehold (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:65.51.122.131 is back at it here. Thanks. Strikehold (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Good warning to him. I've watchlisted a few of his favorite pages and will check back over next few hr to see if need more action. DMacks (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And again. I reverted the edit. Strikehold (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And now again from a different IP. Would you consider protecting this page? Strikehold (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(just returning from vacation...) protected a month. DMacks (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Strikehold (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

US fuel economy

Hello, DMacks. You have new messages at Talk:Hybrid electric vehicles in the United States.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

.

let people to be free of writing and delete your own writing/s

you say the following about yourself " What can I say? I'm a nerd in multiple areas of science, liking both the tinkering and the teaching-others-to-tinker aspects. I have eclectic interests in other areas as well. As an academic, I can be a bit pedantic when it comes to presentation style and usefulness/accessibility of factual content." If you know about yourself than let others alone and let them free to their own way and things start to write, it's a free encyclopedia and not a dictatorship

I do not see where you get the nerve to take away my article, a biography which I just got started. It is a free encyclopedia everybody can write. You have nothing better to do than other people their effort to inform others removed. Do you understand what Free means? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoniqueChrstRoest (talk • contribs) 21:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, wikipedia is most certainly not a free website where anyone can write anything. Rather there are very clear notability standards for topics that merit having an article written. Have a look at WP:BIO and the other links posted on your talk-page. DMacks (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If you know about yourself what you are, than let others alone and let them free to their own way of writing, and things start to write, it's a free encyclopedia and not a dictatorship Look at what is written about Dadaism and perhaps your way of thinking get more free, what the aim is of a free encyclopedia I do not see where you get the nerve to take away my article, a biography which I just got started. It is a free encyclopedia everybody can write. You have nothing better to do than other people their effort to inform others removed. Do you understand what Free means? If you think you are right, than you have to deleted all articles of artists, professors, researchers, composers, poets, historical figures and free thinkers let me be and let others be. If you have the need to delete, delete your own work --MoniqueChrstRoest (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"original research" and budder

Im sorry but my "original research" is the best information available,

And you taking down my edits and warnings to people could very well cause SOMEONES DEATH or a life of Grand Mal Seizures from smoking something they thought was harmless.

How would you feel if someone died from this substance, from the very problem im doing my best to accurately describe? Would you feel like someone who proactively and productively moderates wikipedia for accurate information for the greater good? Or would you feel like you just KILLED SOMEONE?

Im sorry, This substance is very rare and people in the know about it are very reluctant to explain anything about it because its VERY ILLEGAL,

Your consistent editing of the entry on "budder" will very likely result in someone being uninformed and eventually dying or becoming an epileptic for the rest of their life, When my scientifically accurate "original research" could have helped them make a much more informed decision.

Or maybe you are an avid user of Budder who hasnt experienced these side effects yet and maybe one day you will..... then we will see just how original my research is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.179.36 (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOR is pretty clear. If this info is such a critical health issue, it will surely have been written in some other reliable publication that can be cited. I recommend you go find such a source...that's a good use of your time, instead of working towards getting your edit privilege revoked here. DMacks (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

SEPTA Regional Rail

Hello,

Previously you performed a dummy edit at SEPTA to express concurrance with my removal of a "Criticism" section added by User:Oanabay04. As we both said at the time, the sourcing was horribly dated and the text was full of conjecture and WP:WEASEL.

Well, I think I need your help as an admin at SEPTA Regional Rail. The same user, now only using an IP, added a similar section using the same outdated sources. When previously I removed it on the same grounds, he reverted with an edit summary stating "nothing has changed", without offerig any proof that it hasn't. It has become a case of WP:TE in my view, and he has in fact reverted the removal three times today alone. I cannot do any more, as I would run afoul of 3RR, but I feel it needs to be addressed.

His persistant use of IP edits here may be a simple case of him just forgotten to log in, but I'm not sure. I would also not that he actually reverted your dummy edit at the main SEPTA article, probably thinking it would restore the deleted section, but has done nothing more since.

oknazevad (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's make it a public discussion at the talk-page for one of those two articles, will then be easy to get others to add input and either find sources or concur that there's a sourcing problem. And if WP:TE continues, will be easier to take administrative action. Pick a place to start it and let me know... DMacks (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, someone else already removed it, but if it returns again, I'll bring it up at the talk page for the Regional Rail article.oknazevad (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Typos

Understandably, everybody makes mistakes. I noticed when you typed in {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} into someone's talk page, you typed it as {{subst:uw0-vandalism1}}. Remember to look at what the page says after you click save. Thanks. mechamind90 18:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching it! Still getting finger-tied on a new style of keyboard:( DMacks (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference desk - hidden posts

Hi! Could you please head over to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Hidden posts and clarify your comment there? HOOTmag is repeatedly (as in, several dozen times) referencing you as agreeing with him and I'm think he is misinterpreting you. --Tango (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

G'damn it so much. Can't believe we have to spend so much time on this kind of crap! DMacks (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Room "Vandalism"?

You made an edit to "The Room" deleting a section. Your reason for it's deletion was for vandalism. However, that was not vandalism for what was stated was true. The NC did review the movie and it was taken down. The NC then made a satire video, criticizing John from theroommovie.com for threatening to sue for copyright. Here is the link of the video in which NC satirizes him.

I will restore what was deleted. Please do not delete it nor charge me for vandalize.This happen and has important to the film The Room. By deleting it, you rob people of knowledge, as well as undermined the entire point of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSLoner (talk • contribs) 04:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it was locked with the text in-place.

In 2010, the Nostalgia Critic reviewed the film. He placed it firmly in the "so-bad-it's-good" genre and ultimately recommended his audience to view it. The film was quickly removed due to copyright infringement from Wiseau Studios. This also confirms the missing of Obscurus Lupa's (a contributor to ThatGuyWithTheGlasses.com) review of The Room that was also taken down. In response, Doug Walker made a sketch satirizing Wiseau bringing the review down, stating that as a review it is protected under fair use. This sketch also lampooned John, a staff member of the official website for the film, who apparently was the first to bring the complaint.

I agree that vandalism was likely after the review came out, but keeping it locked with the text in place seems to be stifling consensus. There has not yet been much discussion on whether it should be included or not. However without citation there does not seem to be any reason to consider it notable. Reviews by popular YouTube users (and on personal websites) such as Nostalgia Critic and Angry Video Game Nerd have been discussed already, and unless they receive some relevant external coverage as evidenced by citation, they have been deemed non-notable.

I'd like to get another administrator's opinion on this, but thought it best to ask you first. Thanks 71.101.95.236 (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The article was locked immediately when there was evidence of an off-wiki-organized effort to deface the page. Sometimes it gets locked with WP:The Wrong Version. Autoconfirmed editors are welcome to fix the content--anons and new editors are not at this time--that's the price we all pay for anons' vandalism. DMacks (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, could you as an adminstrator edit to remove it? The text in question was clearly added as a result of the "off-wiki-organized effort" and it remains non-notable. Until there has been time for a discussion and consensus, I suggest the relevant text should be removed. On a side note, you locked the Tommy Wiseau page for presumably the same reason with the following text in place:

Wiseau became a target for internet satirists after two reviews of The Room by the Nostalgia Critic and Obscurus Lupa were pulled down due to a claimed copyright infringement despite fair use as a review and parody.

The matter is under dispute (as evidenced by the fact that the claim was made in the first place) and while I think it probably was Fair Use, the personal opinions of myself and the other editors should not be reflected in the article per NPOV. Two citations are provided but they have no relevance to Fair Use, thus the italicized text is original research. Could you please remove it (the italicized part) as uncited? If you're unable to do so, maybe you could suggest a different administrator? Thanks again for your time.71.101.95.236 (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No. The article talk-page is the place to work out whether specific content should be kept vs removed (or changed wording) or whether certain sources are appropriate or not. Administrators are specifically not allowed to use their special tools to choose a winner in an edit-war unless there is very clear abuse or policy violations. DMacks (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disagree here, but this isn't a case of taking sides in an edit war but application of policy. Consensus does need to be reached on the talk page, I couldn't agree more and am adding a note on the talk page. However as the article stands now in its locked state, the biographical page of Tommy Wiseau is asserting one side of a yet-unresolved Fair Use dispute, which is a clear violation of NPOV. Though I happen to personally feel that what the article states is true, my point of view is as irrelevant as any other individual editor's. Until either the dispute is dismissed or a legal ruling is made public that can be cited, the article should not assert an opinion per Wikipedia policy. A consensus can hopefully be reached on whether or not the review in question was a violation of Fair Use, with some sort of verification, but until that time we have a clear violation of policy locked in place on a biographical article of a living person, and its removal is necessary pending consensus. Please understand this is not trying to go over your head in any way, but if you feel that you have some conflict of interest in this matter, I respectfully suggest another administrator's opinion is needed. Thanks. 71.101.95.236 (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to make your case on the article talk-page, where other editors and admins can assist you. I am not willing to make this sort of change based on discussions on my talk-page. DMacks (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt feedback. You've made it clear that you don't wish to intervene further so I'll seek assistance elsewhere. 71.101.95.236 (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Presidents of Ireland

My mistake. Well thank you for clearing that up in non-childish manner unlike Snappy's response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.111.194 (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. DMacks (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Enolase thing

I had also checked both papers and could find no mention of enolase. I have always assumed that the effect was due to the greater resistance of the fluoroapatite to bacteria.--Smokefoot (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, just found a bunch of support for that in the water-fluoridation article, so I nuked the statement. DMacks (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Why delete a new form of art?

Hi Dmacks, Why? Are you out to kill new forms of art? I don't understand why you've killed my link. Would you please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brewmaster007 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You describe it as essentially something you made up rather than something others have written about in independent sources. WP is for things that are already notable, not for publicizing or collecting/writing examples of your own ideas. DMacks (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Fligban

Hi Dmack,

I saw that you deleted my entry. I understand why you may have done this. Allow me to assure you what I posted is not "blatant misuse of the website." What I posted is a new form of art. We are students of the arts and can prove so if you need. I feel you've acted without precedence (and I understand why given the nature of this website) but I implore you to reconsider.

Fligban is not a joke. I (we) view this as art form as legitimate as any other that exists on this website an beyond. I’m happy to discuss this offline if need be, but in the meantime, please allow us to express ourselves.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brewmaster007 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a performance/art/personal-expression venue. It's an encyclopedia. In order for an artile to survive, it must have existing notability (which is different from "popularity" or "I like this thing"). Lots of niche-topics just aren't viable unfortunately. If and when your thing is written-about in other sources, then an article would be possible. DMacks (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Enzyme

Just passing by the /wiki/Enzyme page and noticed it might need an update.

Go to Youtube and type in How proteins build cells [1].

..the Chaperonin / folding models in most of those videos is incorrect, however.

Here's a link to a for research on that -

Research reveals insight into the hidden world of protein folding[2] - 2008

REFERENCES
[ 1 ] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=983lhh20rGY&feature=related - How proteins build cells
[ 2 ] - http://news.stanford.edu/news/2008/june11/chaperon-061108.html - Judith Friedman, Stanford Univ. 2008

Ahshabazz (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)