User talk:DMacks/Archive 24

You recently auto-protected the article about Lucy Hannah so that only administrators can edit it. I therefore ask you to re-add the mention of Lucy Hannah having been the oldest African American on record. This is recognized by the Gerontology Research Group^[1]. What Commanderlinx is doing is determining what is reliable or not instead of letting a third-party source do so. This is ORIGINAL RESEARCH AND WIKI:OWN, both clear violations of the Wikipedia guidelines.

Thanks, 930310 (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Lucy Hannah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I will not make a judgement about this without a consensus or strong rationale (i.e., "discuss don't editwar") on the article's talkpage (or some policy-based reason that strongly requires content to be removed or added, which is not the case here). In the mean time, I merely froze the WP:WRONGVERSION to force you two to stop edit-warring before you wound up getting blocked. Ger others' opinions, get other references, links to support the reliability of your source (WP:RSN?), etc. DMacks (talk) 06:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

15:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reducing sugar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quantitative. 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) 09:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

...an editor has a registered account, which he claims is not blocked and has various barnstars or whatever, then what's his excuse for editing as an IP-hopper? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Unless there's good reason to believe that an IP editor is indeed evading a block, is acting as a sockpuppet in order to evade a block, or is otherwise behaving disruptively, then questioning their motives and activity is itself disruptive. As an IP I've explained my motives to several editors over the years--both admins and non-administrative--but never dignify the unwarranted interrogation by those accounts who assume negative motives, without reason or purpose. It's intrusive and constitutes harassment. 2601:188:0:ABE6:99FD:4E02:9E12:4A31 (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Your excessive defensiveness does not serve your claims well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Quite the contrary: unless you can cite a reason to question my actions, or are prepared to open a discussion at SPI or any noticeboard, you are out of line. 2601:188:0:ABE6:99FD:4E02:9E12:4A31 (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The IP in question is not a blocked editor. I can't claim to know their reasons for editing while not logged in, but if they want to, and aren't causing harm, I'm not sure I see reason for complaint. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Bugs, your line of enquiry is verging towards, if not actually, harassment. Dont you have something better to do. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, I've seen this song-and-dance too many times. But if Kafka is convinced the registered editor is not blocked, then so be it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thoughtful people judge on merit and evidence, rather than prejudice.. And anyway you are not in a position to block, thankfully given this trigger happy dead end. Ceoil (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in blocking (and blocking an IP-hopper is pointless), but only in raising questions which others may have overlooked. Kafka says the user is OK, so you can zip it now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Wanker. Ceoil (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

TMI. Keep your hobbies to yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hallo again :-) I suppose you are right about changing decomposition back to decomposion (because you are living in US; maybe native speaker). Before I changed it - I tried to search for it (outside Wikipedia too)... Do you have any suggestions to which article decomposion should (could) be redirected to? (chemical decomposition maybe?) Christian75 (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why WP didn't flag the edit-conflict when I saved my unrelated change. I re-fixed. DMacks (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello DMacks. Sikander Afghan is a new sock of Najaf ali bhayo. Disruptively editing Talk:Khowar language with the same pattern. Khestwol (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Indef'ed. Thanks for tracking this annoyance. DMacks (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Another sock of him: Giannis Plato (notice the similarity with Giannis Paros). Khestwol (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

And another indef. How boring he is. DMacks (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

In the Sri Sri Ravi Shankar page you reverted my edit. In doing so you wrote in the edit summary: Please find a secondary ref rather than using your own editorial decisions. What did you mean by the words "secondary ref"? Soham321 (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You (and I and everyone else who writes here) are forbidden from choosing what quotes we think are notable or especially representative of this person's position. Instead, we are required to find secondary references, where others who have a reputation for understanding the topic place them in context. It's part of what User:Prashantbhukamp mentioned, a concern about Fallacy of quoting out of context. DMacks (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Soham321 (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

15:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Phenylarsine oxide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Receptor. 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) 11:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, DMacks:

    When I fixed the some mistake of python code in "leap year", my code is rollback by you for the reason "Too much detail/WP is not a how-to manual". I'm software engineer, and I found many people don't known the history of "leap year", include the textbooks about programming in china. the wrong code is used for getting "leap year"(before 1582). So, I spend some time to study this question, and wrote the code which let more people know "leap year". can you allow the code is added to the context of "leap year".

   It's my first commit in Wiki. :)

   Best Regards

   Jerry.Liu, Beijing, China

   PS:
   I have add python code to bake of baidu. let more people knows the history of "leap year".  My English is poor, maybe you can know what I said.  hah.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryLiu2015china (talk • contribs) 09:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that distinction - I didnt know about the polyyne page. A slew of plant articles were linked incorrectly to polyacetylene but the jargon conflicts with the article titles. My guess is the polyacetylene is more commonly used for polyynes in the plant kingdom than for the Nobel-prize winning polymer, so possibly a "not to be confused with" notice should be added. In any case thanks.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

There is an {{about}} hatnote, but I agree we need a different solution given how many incorrect inbound links there were. I wonder if there is an alternate term for the conducting-polymer topic, so that polyacetylene could become a disambig page? DMacks (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Fulvalenes, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.thefullwiki.org/Fulvalene.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

03:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello DMacks, I Kindly Request You To Protect This Wikipedia Page of Kick (2014 film) because of High Vandalism by unknown users link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kick_(2014_film). Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobalawyer (talk • contribs) 17:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lombard Street Bridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bifurcated. 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) 09:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

15:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

Some of the changes that I did recently on the pages were reverted by you even though I had given reference.

May I know what is considered as trivial?

I am not expert in Wikipedia editing, so please explain.

Srini (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I undid the change you made to one page, and User:Cpt.a.haddock undid what was essentially the same change to several other pages. I don't think that the facts aren't true (thank you for supplying the reference!). But I am concerned that for now it is only a news detail related to controversial events (either what happened that is being petitioned, or the involvement of the external people who are petitioning). I think we should wait to see if there is any impact or additional reporting of this petitioning. That is, "event 1 is notable" and "person 2 is notable", but that doesn't automatically make things about "person 2 taking some action regarding event 1" notable (especially if it's not clear that person 2 is actually involved with event 1). DMacks (talk) 07:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Irfan Habib does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Kautilya3 (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

please explain V8rik (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kethoxal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reversible. 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) 09:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

15:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi DMacks, Just thought I'd write a note to you as my recent edit has been deleted, Having been a pro musician all my life and notice that the only thing about me is one line to say I sang I Love You with Climax Blues Band is a little frustrating. My reason for adding a sort of biog is that no one else will, its not meant to be self promoting in any way just to list one's achievements, I thought Wikipedia was exactly that , an information page. Any way I do apologise, Thanks Derek Holt 86.144.32.127 (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

14:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This was one of the more involved edits I've made thus far to Wikipedia. I'll be the first to admit that I was in over my head from the start.

First, the pachymic acid article. I was surprised that there wasn't even a stub article, so I set upon trying to create one. I started with an arbitrary compound, arachadonic acid, copied the chembox template and began substituting values. I'm not surprised that there were some vestiges left behind, as all of this was done with a finicky wi-fi connection that really challenged my patience as I went about editing. I looked around for a free way of generating a 2D drawing, as I'm on an extremely low budget. There's no doubt that the drawing I came up with was crude indeed, but I was hoping for someone like you to come along and substitute a superior (and more completely drawn) image. Thanks for doing that.

Second, the Wolfiporia Extensa article. Another editor added an orphan tag to the pachymic acid article, so to eliminate that, I wiki-linked from the W extentsa article. In your revert you mention that a different species is involved, but that is inaccurate. If you look at the synonyms for Wolfiporia extensa, Wolfiporia cocos is one of them. Your revert, although done with good intentions was done for a reason I'm not in agreement with, ie, there having been two different species, but that was not the case. Moreover, your revert of the W extensa article has made the pachymic acid article an orphan again. A source for pachymic acid is inarguably this mushroom, which is known by Wolfiporia extensa AND Wolfiporia cocos. They're synonyms for the same species. Would you consider reverting your revert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chango369w (talk • contribs) 07:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the article! I was browsing for chemistry images that were tagged for various administrative or scientific attention, no problem for me to draw a nice one. Definitely no offense intended regarding yours. I know how difficult science drawings and articles can be to get onto Wikipedia.

That synonym issue is confusing. I did not notice the infobox section on the Wolfiporia extensa species. Instead, I was looking at the Wolfiporia genus article, which has cocos and extensa listed as two separate species. I'm coming into this with no background for this sort of taxonomy:( I found a higher quality ref that discusses the biological origin of this chemical, and it also agrees with the synonym situation specifically in relation to it, so there's no doubt about it. So I re/undid the link changes, and also put some notes in the genus and species articles clarifying that there is confusion. Let me know if there's anything further to clean up, or in general if you need help with (bio-)chemistry content. DMacks (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for everything that you've done! No offense taken at all. I wish I had known about your drawing skills around 5 weeks ago. I had the then embryonic Pachymic acid article in edit mode on a tab on my browser for weeks while I procrastinated. I tried a number of free drawing programs, but got mired down, finally settling for the program I ended up using. So I suppose you could call what I created a image stub. :)

What you've substituted in its place is far far better. BTW, the motivation for creating the pachymic acid article emerged out of having done a Google search using the following keywords: "pachymic acid pubmed". Maybe you've already done so, but it appears to me that this is a compound worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia! Once again, thanks. Should I run across something like this again, would you be willing to collaborate? Chango369w (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I would certainly be willing to collaborate on these sorts of articles. DMacks (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think Black Epsilon~ the big draw you've been cleaning. I forgot to check and block this one earlier. —SpacemanSpiff 20:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup, tagged and blocked. I'll do more laundry later today. DMacks (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi you have said i could be blocked from wikipedia without further warning. I am not a spammer. I dont have an intention to spam on a prestigious website like wikipedia. i am trying my best to put in some useful / relevant information. My submission "what is my face shape" was kept as a relevant document for more than a week. I thought it was pretty much informative as far as the topic was concerned. I dont know why you have decided to delete it suddenly. To add to my surprise, you have sent me a warning. is it a right way to treat? You owe me an explanation about your deletions 1. "what is my face shape" in Facial symmetry 2. "smokey eye makeup" in cosmetics section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avisonly (talk • contribs) 20:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Your sole activity here appears to be adding to links to some website, one that does not seem like a reliable source. I see others had already left you several talkpage notes about your edits, and I see that many your similar edits had been undone. Your edit to Cosmetics was the one that I first noticed and that pushed it over the edge...not even an attempt to add content, just dump in a link. That's WP:SPAM. And it was the same site as you had been adding in various ways--"adding links to that site" was the pattern that emerged, so I made sure to clear up that pattern ("refspam" is the usual way it's described). Clearly were not getting the message with milder wordings, so I went with a stronger wording in my message. DMacks (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Dmacks,

thanks for assisting me. just a newbie on Wikipedia so, not so information i got right now. About how to write and what is appropriate thing to post on a page. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polet1980 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I just left a brief bit of information and some links about how to get started on your talkpage. Let me know if you have any questions. DMacks (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

…at the recent Talk I added at Wikiproject Chem, which then references to a discussion at the Infoboxes. The data in these appears to be the bailiwick of a group of Infobox devotees, and so getting process to change will be sticky. But at present, much infobox "info" is so much unverifiable hooey, at least practically spelling—who has time to check a list of possible sources, for each fact?—at least, as far as I can see. Cheers, mate. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look tomorrow. Thanks for the heads-up. DMacks (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello - Looks like I updated a source on Rider University page by logging out. This was not my intention, I assumed you had to be logged in to make the change. Apologies for the confusion. I am new to Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.104.9 (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries! But the entry itself is not acceptable. A person needs to meet Wikipedia's "notability standard" to be listed. See WP:BIO for details. DMacks (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

16:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Krizclo (talk · contribs)

Hi DMacks, it looks like ability to edit their own page might need to be reconsidered. I've already reverted their crap enough. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

And thank you for vandal-patrolling! I saw that talkpage, and I don't think it is yet at that level. The WP:BLANKING guideline lets users remove messages from their talkpage (makes sense), even including some tags relating to active blocks (I don't agree with this, but it's the current standard). Instead, either he'll give up after not getting further attention or waste more of his time for a while before being forced to give up anyway. DMacks (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know that some active block templates could be removed, and take it that the policy has changed. Much appreciated, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I know that when on the internet one should grow a thick skin and just let it go, and I also know that everyone has the right to say whatever they want to whomsoever they want. Therefore I'm just asking if a request of revdel has any chance of going through on this revision. I am aware that this is not a personal attack on me, just that the person being attacked is the leader of my religion and I don't think we should abuse him as such. (Yes you have the right to say that WP is not uncensored and IDLI is very common, and that I'm being emotional, but I hope you wont mind me disturbing you as such)FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it meets the revdel threshhold. I agree it's a pile of insults and you are rightfully upset at seeing them, but it's written as "these are the beliefs of some set of people" and in that respect it seems at least somewhat supported by several WP articles and and their sources. That is, it's (at least on its face) faithfully reporting what that set of people say. And that position is relevant to this editor's comments on the article/template content. That's about the limit of what one is able to say here on Wikipedia, more restrictive than anyone-say-anything-to-anyone feel of the larger Internet realm.

That said, the editor does have an edit history including directly insulting other editors and many behavioral warnings. I recommend you (continue to) stick to factual and citable edits, and talkpage discussions based on them even in the face of someone else's edit-warring. Admins seem aware that this one editor is edit-warring against multiple other editors across multiple pages, so as long as you remain above that behavior, he'll either calm down as well or continue and get blocked. DMacks (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I hope you did not mind me wasting your time. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't a waste of time, and I don't mind:) DMacks (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

13:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

HI, I edited "Mahesh Babu" page a while ago . I have related news articles, confirmed by Mahesh Babu himself on his twitter paged etc for all the text I posted but didn't know how to post the links. All the content was removed now stating that my edit seemed less than neutral to DMacks .

I can still provide all the news articles and links related to every line or alphabet I posted on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princeofap (talk • contribs) 20:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is wikipedia policy that all factual claims, especially about people on their biographical articles, have a citation to a reliable source. Any standard bibliographic format, URL, or similar is fine...it needs to allow any reader to verify the statements. Self-made claims, such as twitter or a person's own website, are usually not good for awards or achievements. It's too easy for "anyone to claim anything about himself". A link to an award's or charity's own website would be better (they have less reason to make false claims). Even better would be a published media report (news website, etc.), since that is more in keeping with the reliable-source guideline. DMacks (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I added the content again with links to the sources(national media). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princeofap (talk • contribs) 20:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

We already had this conversation last year stop changing my word i already made my case you are a bad person on a power trip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.58.155.181 (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

And the final comment I made at the time was that I supported "usually" only if the term "hot dog" was removed. The article says "hot dog", so I (still) object to "usually" as before. You can see from the edit-history that several others do too, and the word "usually" wound up being omitted from the article in the timeframe after the talkpage discussion. So that's the apparent result of the talkpage discussion and seeming consensus of other editors as status quo before you decided to edit-war it again recently. Feel free to dig a hole unrelated to any merit your idea might have and see if it accomplishes your goal. DMacks (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

So, you reverted every edit I've added? I'm trying to learn the ropes around here, but your message and reverting every single edit I've made is an odd way to go about things, in my opinion. Please explain how each edit I made was against Wikipedia rules. If I'm not supposed to mess with Alexa rankings or other analytics, that's cool. But what warranted the others being reverted? Thanks. LordoftheRingsFAN73 (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You are engaging in what appears to be WP:REFSPAM for SimilarWeb, and you are one of a series of editors performing that same activity over the past month or two. Links to that website are currently listed as a likely spam problem. And most of the other edits you performed appear to be WP:OVERLINK. That's another common activity of the other accounts that are refspamming for SimilarWeb. So now there is also a possible WP:SOCKPUPPET problem. Have you been using multiple accounts? Do you have any personal or business affiliation with SimilarWeb? Care to clarify either of these situations for us? DMacks (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

page Tymoshenko, have You deleted important information, which contains the reference. Do not engage in vandalism--Lidaz (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring is unacceptable behavior, regardless of whether the content is good or not. Others say it is not good. Please discuss with them. Edit-war, and you will have your right to edit revoked, which means you lose even if you are "right". DMacks (talk) 08:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

DMacks,You continue to wrongly delete the information on the page Tymoshenko. I think admins will block Your actions in the near future.--Lidaz (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

21:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

My bad. I misread it as "covalently bond molecules," which clearly wouldn't be right. Thanks for catching it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jqavins (talk • contribs) 11:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi DMacks, I'm new to editing Wikipedia so thanks for your help & patience with me. I do work for Dell. I just read through the conflict of interest guide. I see your comments on the talk page and will make my comments there. I'll make recommendations on the talk page going forward. If you have any specific recommendations for me that will be helpful. 99others (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, we are staff from SCGS and we would like to help to keep the info up to date. Please advise how we can assist to keep the information updated. Thanks. email: scgss_ict@moe.edu.sg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.189.35.234 (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Greetings sir,

I'm seeking your input regarding the sources collected for the Parwez article here , in order to build consensus on the content before I edit the main page.

It looks like most of the sources are being accepted, just two questions remain:

1. Can I insert the sourced comment that Parwez rejected "some" hadith to clarify (not remove) his "Quranist" title?
2. How many primary sources can I use to suppliment the 3rd party sources on which there is consensus?

Your opinion will be highly appreciated. Thank you.Code16 ^{... Logic Bomb !} 12:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

For 1, I don't know enough about this topic (or subtle shades of meaning of the terminology) to give a good answer within the limits of secondary sources. For 2, I don't know if you need *any* primaries if you have a secondary/tertiary. DMacks (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

"Sound like anti-gravity" - to whom? I can imagine several situation when this content can be relevant, e.g., when some crook tried to sell it as anti-gravity or it was used in film to imitate antiG, etc. However we need a reference for this, right? It does not matter that a wikipedian thinks something "smells like anti-gravity" They didn't look like anti-G for me. Heck, I myself defy gravity every morning :-)- üser:Altenmann >t 17:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. is just one of however-many novelty/toy or hoax/crook examples you want, including the two secondary-cites at the end of the lead. But looking more closely now, the key items from that list already are embedded elsewhere in the article with on-topic discussion, so I don't see the need the for redundant list of them. DMacks (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

17:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Howard University has more than a medical and law school, why are you omitting the pharmacy and dentistry school ... both are post-bachelor degrees Broadmoor (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Once I saw several unexplained and "on their face" confusing and bad-faith other changes, I did not look in any further detail. You are welcome to make corrections with cited sources. I encourage you to use edit-summaries so others know the nature and basis of your changes. I see you have a track record of bad edits, so you should expect extra scrutiny going forward. DMacks (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello DMacks. You corrected a bad edit I made here . I will endeavor to be more careful in the future and to not become a menace to the factual integrity of Wikipedia. Regards --ChemWarfare (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries! It was already a mistake there before you changed it, and you at least made it a self-consistent and reasonable way. DMacks (talk) 04:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, what do you propose we do about Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld? After telling the IP, multiple times to use the talk page, they continue to post on the article itself. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

He's got 24h to think about what everyone's been telling him. I have no idea the merits of his complaint because it's too vague. The talkpage does have some concerns already noted (again non-specific), but I don't know enough about the subject to know if or what to change. DMacks (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright then. Even I don't know anything about the subject. I just saw the repeated POV pushing and left warning. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The photo you removed https://www.flickr.com/photos/democonference/15644445510 was attributed and used within the Creative Commons license posted by the creator (copied below) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/ > Please repost. Thank you.

You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes. NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material. No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenschutz (talk • contribs) 02:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Both "NC" and "ND" place this image outside the bounds of what is allowable. DMacks (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance on the article. While I disagree with you assertion that I was edit warring, I respect your warning and feel that the move lock is not needed. Softlander was the third person to weigh in and at that point there was a discussion ongoing. If you feel there is enough reason to hold that lock I have no further argument other than, I will not be changing that again, nor is it likely the other editor will.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what is going on. Your last revert has confused me. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we edit-conflicted clicking "revert". WP registered yours first, then my action seems to have been registered as a revert of your revert rather than of the actual edit you and I were both trying to revert. Sorry about that! DMacks (talk) 07:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Aah, alright. I was confused because you restored the edit, albeit accidentally, of a user you had just blocked, who has, requested for an unblock.. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I am Dietrich Rordorf. When I posted those e-mails, I was no longer a founder/owner of MDPI. It was not out of my own initiative, but I was an order from Dr. Shu-Kun Lin. I have left MDPI by the end of July 2015 because I could no longer bear the strange relationship with Dr. Lin. The sentence as presented here insinuates that I faked those documents. This is inacceptable. I request that my name be removed here as it is not relevant who within the company fulfilled Dr. Lin's request to compile the e-mails from the company archive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.101.223 (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks for clarifying the timeline. DMacks (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The red pen of doom and a few other biased editors are fencing encyclopaedic information from the page Karan Singh Grover! Being an admin you should be fair! Please try and see that a few of your editors are unethical and wrong, if you don't believe me check for yourself, there is no good reason to remove any of that encyclopaedic information with valid source information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.23.217.93 (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the sentence's meaning confused me before. Apologies for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcc1789 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 12 September 2015‎ (UTC)

No need to apologize! WP is all about moving towards more-correct and more-clearly-explained. I added a link for the key idea of "falsification", and would be happy to see any other changes that would make it more understandable. DMacks (talk) 05:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, DMacks. Could you consider weighing in on this proposal at the List of Muppets discussion page? ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 18:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear sir, In Chitral 80% people speak " Chitrali " language rest 20% speak Pushto, Urdu and Kalash. Kindly please correct the language in article chitral Best wishes Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 08:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Please change the article, including a proper citation to support this information. I do not have a current reference at hand. DMacks (talk) 08:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)