Jump to content

User talk:DMacks/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

17:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

16:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations

100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 350 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.
Buster Seven Talk 16:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Vaikom Ramachandran

Hi DMacks

I received a message saying that my recent contribution was done. Please could you let me know what was the issue?

Many thanks in advance, Dev — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.47.15.200 (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Max Li Hao

First, congratulations on your 100k! I'm at 144k, but unlike you, I did nearly all of it with Huggle, so it doesn't count. I probably should have an edit count of 3-7/42...

re your revert to Max Li Hao's page blanking of Tide rolls here Max Li Hao is quite likely a sock. There does not seem to be an SPI. It seems that as soon as one is blocked another Li Hao reappears. I suspect if one is too quick on the draw blocking these, another persona might be used. I left a message about this on Tide rolls' page which is probably what instigated the page blanking. Evidence? So, I used noping. These have been blocked, mostly for SP. Also, likely a COI.

Updated with account creation date Jim1138 (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Thanks for the congrats! Interesting situation, I'm not familiar with this sock-drawer. If @Tide rolls: recognizes it, he may have some suggestions specific to this case. Articles related to Southeast-Asian media are often sock-infested messes in my experience. Seems like an SPI would be a good place to centralize the accounts list and note the edit pattern. DMacks (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jim1138:,I've blocked this account due to general disruptive practices and refusing to communicate. SPI may still be advisable if only to keep the information current. Also, Dmacks, if you think my action premature, please advise. By way of explanation, I've attempted communication with this individual for two months with no response. Thanks all, Tiderolls 15:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
@Tide rolls:, Dmacks: I was considering filing an SPI. I'm concerned that he will stop socking with usernames containing "Hao". Then it would be difficult to track. Need some software with learning capabilities to recognize such socks.
I seem to remember trying to contact a Mr. Li Hao sock a few times without any response. Given the numerous promotional edits, I suspect Mr. Li Hao may be affiliated, if not employed by Astro.
Shall I create an SPI for this? Add the above list of usernames? Any other usernames? Cheeers Jim1138 (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yisroel Belsky

Hi DMacks. I see that you are an Administrator and have also reverted IP edits on Yisroel Belsky. They keep happening so can you please help with WP:Requests_for_page_protection#Yisroel_Belsky. Thank you. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi'd. Not sure I'll have much time to wiki over the next day or two, but will try to keep an eye on it moving forward. DMacks (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi DMacks. The sources the article is using is extremely biased. It implies that the man supported sexual abuse. I know the man by name (never spoke more than a few words to him, but I'm familiar with his career) and have followed the stories and he was only guilty of believing better of his so-called friends than they deserved. That is definitely an issue, but not what the article makes it sound like. Another item- the controversy about physical force against that husband who refused to give his wife a religious divorce leaves out a very important bit of information that the husband was abusive. I'm sure you've heard of brothers beating up abusive husbands - this is a similar story. The thought behind some of my edits- I didn't add the hyperbole, that was someone else- was to make the wikipedia article the balanced article it should be. --defender583 20:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a great concern to raise on the article's talkpage. A centralized discussion, proposing additional text to add or other edits to make, with cites for additional sources (or concerns about existing sources) so others with interest in the article can participate and hopefully arrive at a consensus. One thing to keep in mind is that "personally known information" is not acceptable; for better or worse, only published reliable sources can be used (and only content verifiable by them can be included). DMacks (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

DMacks- the guy just died. There's stuff in the wikipedia article that is twisted from the sources to sound extremely bad. I think that Jersey92 is singlehandedly putting this twist in. I'm not saying this from stuff personally known to me, but from the same sources that are referenced now. The issue is are you going to let someone have defamatory stuff about them be put up again and again by one wikipedia user? It would be great if you could look at some of the IP edits that were removed and take out that slant. I don't think I have the manpower right now to keep undoing what Jersey92 is doing. --defender583 21:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Take it to the talkpage. DMacks (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for patrolling my page. This is a long-term abuser who has done this a lot, and I was wondering if you were familiar with the master. GABHello! 23:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

18:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

February events and meetups in DC

Greetings from Wikimedia DC!

February is shaping up to be a record-breaking month for us, with nine scheduled edit-a-thons and several other events:

We hope to see you at one—or all—of these events!

Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at info@wikimediadc.org!

Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You're receiving this message because you signed up for updates about DC meetups. To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the list.

Can't create this article!

Hi Can you please tell me why i can't create this(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haalum) article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayak Bepari (talkcontribs) 19:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Because it fails WP:GNG and you are failing WP:EW and likely WP:COI. Even now, you're trying to hide your identity by refusing to sign your message to me. DMacks (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if you would be able to take a look at that article? The nonsense has started again, and you are one of the few people still editing who knows the article's history. NeilN apparently doesn't have time right now, and I can't handle this by myself. Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I left a quick comment on the talkpage and will watch it, but given history I'm content to leave it in its pre-existing frozen state unless we have extremely reliable new references and consensus to change. DMacks (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism is happening often. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: does it seem like there are any viable edits that get approved, or would semiPROT be better? DMacks (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Your decision. I'm fine with either way. George Ho (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Semi'ed 1 year. No sense you and others wasting your time reverting so many anon bad edits. DMacks (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Reverting of edit by Michael Fjord

Hello, I wanted to explain the reason I removed information from BuzzFeed's page. I am affiliated with General Atlantic, and my goal on Wikipedia is to accurately list investment information concerning General Atlantic and General Atlantic’s portfolio companies. The investment information I removed was sourced from 3rd party news articles, but cannot be verified by General Atlantic or the companies who’s Wikipedia pages the information appears on as the details of those deals were not officially made public. I am able to verify the year of investment, so I kept that information available. If removal of the source is an issue, then I recommend keeping the source and date of investment, but removing other investment details (as my recent edits were intended to do). Thank you for your help! Michael Fjord (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

no warring

uh no, actually it isn't. No violation of 3RR, nor will there be. Pot-kettle-black about "edit-warring" when there's rude removing of valid accurate elabs for "I don't like" reasons and non-valid WP reasons. I'm only restoring correct information against WP bullies who think they own articles, when they don't. Please don't put nonsense on my page again. I don't break WP rules or standards like you do. I would never remove something, a good-faith valid accurate elaboration, from another editor, simply because I thought it may have been "too excessive". It's a Wiki, DMacks. No one contributor owns any article. Thanks. 71.183.133.173 (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, you do not own the articles. WP:EW is the behavioral standard you are failing to live up to, by making the same edit three times and refusing to accept that anyone can possibly have any valid objection to what you wish an article to say. Why are you writing about celestial bodies in thermodynamics articles anyway? You are on notice that you know about edit-warring, and the likely block that results when you continue doing it rather than listening to others first. DMacks (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
WP policy and recommendation is to MODIFY rather than completely remove. You have not done that. If you have some issue about "celestial" bodies, you could have still kept the point about "disorganize" as (this has been a complaint from many) not every reader necessarily understands what the word "entropy" means or refers to or signifies. What's wrong with clarifying what that word means for the average reader who is not always so technically versed?? You'll notice that in the article there, the word "entropy" is not really explained even a little bit. (And PLEASE save the old silly excuse or line of "well the reader can click the wiki link"...as that is not always done, and the body of the article should have at least some clarification of unfamiliar uncommon not-always-used and technical terms etc.) Again, good faith accurate additions, mods, and elabs, should not be so hastily completely removed, but at most maybe modified or tweaked. Thanks. 71.183.133.173 (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
WP policy is that it is uploader's WP:BURDEN to provide cites for any uploaded material and that it's not others' responsibility to fix the uploader's mistakes rather than deleting outright what is nonsense. I have made no excuses...you seem fond of putting incorrect words in my mouth. WP:AGF is a policy that can get you blocked just as sure as edit-warring and other disruption. DMacks (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Harassment Notification and Warning

I don't know what you have against me and I don't know what your problem is or what privilege you assume you have but I do not accept harassment at any level. You seem to be following every edit I make on every page for the sheer enjoyment of bullying and harassment. You have made you intentions clear as you have continued to revert every single revision I have made in the past few days as you choose to input your own opinion into the edits I make. If you continue with following my every move and continue with your harassment, then I will be left with no choice contact the wikipedia staff to have you blocked and banned from this site. Please, resolve any issues you have with me and move on. There are more important people to bully and harass elsewhere on other sites that would probably be more fun to you. Don't keep on disrupting progress on this site, an educational encyclopedia that people come to for information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LivingGuildpact (talkcontribs) 04:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Our site's Verifiability policy is one of the core policies that helps wikipedia progress in its educational mission. Adding content that is not in keeping with that, and associated/supporting guidelines such as reliable sourcing, such as you are doing, is not helpful. Please make sure you are only adding content when accompanied by a bibliographic citation from a reliable source to support it. I'll start...Miracle Whip's page lists water as its first ingredient, therefore the second ingredient (some sort of oil) cannot be more than 50% of the contents. But mayonnaise according to the US-FDA ref listed on its page requires that the oil content be ≥65%. So now you need to find a ref that says either Kraft is incorrect about what its own product contains or that the FDA misprinted or changed their mind of their own legal documents. DMacks (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

16:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Climate Action Plan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Climate Action Plan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate Action Plan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jm (talk | contribs) 16:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you contributed to the discussion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avoiding dangerous climate change, I wanted to ping you and let you know that your input would be valued. I am posting this notice on the talk page for every editor who has contributed to that discussion and the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate action, regardless of their vote or apparent viewpoint. Jm (talk | contribs) 17:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Did not understand

Hello.Thanks for message but I did not understand why you removed my edit. I found dead link on page and changed it to similar live link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coma123 (talkcontribs) 16:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and then User:KH-1 removed it, saying "not RS"...that is, he felt the link you added did not meet our reliable-source guidelines. So first, Wikipedia doesn't allow you to simply keep re-adding once there's a disagreement...that's an edit war, which doesn't benefit readers or editors. But second, I also think that the site you added does not meet the RS guidelines. It looks like just a blog similar self-published website, which is especially bad for any sort of medical-related content. That's how the previous (deadlink, as you noted) appeared to be also. KH-1 and I both supported simply removing altogether rather than reverting to include the deadlink. There's already another link to a high quality source there, so adding an additional (and lower-quality) one doesn't help. DMacks (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

18:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

While I have your ear...

...ind swinging by Talk:Vladimir Putin? Bit of a fight going on there, people deleting others' posts, etcetera.. Could use a referee. HalfShadow 08:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, that's more of a mess than I have time to sort through right now:( DMacks (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nef synthesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Ulric Nef. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Revision on page Flipkart

Please advise why the following were removed:

[added content text itself removed; instead, here is a link to the edit: [49]]

Benitism (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

That content you added appears to be substantially cut-and-pasted from the cited references. That makes the content a copyright violation, which is completely forbidden on wikipedia. I left more commentary and links about this problem on your talkpage. DMacks (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Revision Snapdeal

lease advise why the following were removed:

[added content text itself removed; instead, here is a link to the edit: [50]]

Benitism (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Also a copyright violation ([51] for example). DMacks (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

20:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

This Month in Education: [March 2016]





We apologize for an earlier distribution that mistakenly took on the older content. We hope you enjoy the newest issue of the newsletter we are sharing now.--Sailesh Patnaik (Distribution leader) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

March events and meetups in DC

Greetings from Wikimedia DC!

Looking for something to do in DC in March? We have a series of great events planned for the month:

Can't make it to an event? Most of our edit-a-thons allow virtual participation; see the guide for more details.

Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at info@wikimediadc.org!

Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You're receiving this message because you signed up for updates about DC meetups. To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the list.

20:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Escape Plan

Hi DMacks, we restored info on a broken link and added to where it was referenced. The page I edited is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_safety. The old url for escape plan was https://www.usfa.fema.gov/citizens/home_fire_prev/escape/. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. I can be reached on ed.burton79@gmail.com. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.89.9.1 (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

18:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

How is that disruptive editing?

I only added the words "is the motion of" to make it more sensible. The language seemed inadequate.How is that disruptive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by K Sikdar (talkcontribs) 09:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding what you say you did...you changed someone else's talkpage comment in a way that changes the exact meaning of what was written. That's forbidden by our standard talkpage guidelines...you don't know what shade of meaning or level of explanation was intended. But worse, you completely removed my comment. That's even worse than doing just against-guideline but perhaps minor changes to someone else's wording. Here's a link to the changes you made: [78]. DMacks (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

16:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I've closed the AFD as a keep. I did read the article and don't think it shouldv'e been kept, but consensus is consensus and that's what counts in the end. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the followup. DMacks (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

19:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That was quick

Fair enough. [88]. Perhaps the word will become common use after his Tarzan-movie, then I´ll be able to source it to CNN, BBC, WaPo and the like. Sorry for the bother! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No bother at all. UrbanDictionary and similar sites are pretty notable as a nonreliable source, and things related to living persons need really good sources (WP:BLP policy). But sure, if some day this gets picked up in mainstream media or something like that, it's reasonable to include it (as actual prose with cite). DMacks (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

22:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)