User talk:DMacks/Archive 30

The article Dinclix GroundWorks was nominated for deletion by you, the article was written in a neutral tone and did not possessed any promotional or advertising material, it seems like you never read the article before nominating for speedy deletion, I want you to restore it and discuss the issues you have with it. Putting it under A7/G11 is unfair.

Regards. --TheodoreIndiana (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2016 (IST)

Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7: "No indication of importance", meaning that the article makes no statement that indicated any sort of notability according to the meaning of WP:CORP or WP:GNG standards. Someone else nominated it, I looked at it and agreed that there was no mention of anything that would classify it as notable, so I deleted it. Looking at the deleted article, I stand by that assessment. And I also agree that there is non-neutral/promotional wording. Pretty much anything that calls itself a "solution" is unencyclopediac fluff. DMacks (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree, the article I wrote didn't clearly mentioned why the organisation is notable, I accept that's my mistake. However, it should be noted that it is one of the only companies from India which are working on Non-uniform rational B-spline Oriented Virtual Auxiliary project(s), the research is being done with Indian Institute of Technology, Indore and Institute of Engineering and Science IPS Academy ^[1]. Even that aside, the company provides cloud computing services which are the same thing companies like Alpha7, Epos Now, Enomaly Inc, Advania, Netronome, rPath, Rackspace are doing and are still written on Wikipedia and that too in a biased tone. Sir, I request you to please help me in this case. Your help is appreciated.

Would also like to extend this message to @Light2021: Regards. --TheodoreIndiana (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2016 (IST)

to your response the kind of article are accepted, and the mentioned by you like Rackspace is nowhere close to deleted company. As you can see the comments and pure Vandalism made by user for this company. " Professor X" . mentioned company are there because they deserve to be part of it. on the other hand by misusing Wikipedia, Vandalism and Abuse made by users to other contributors are no way good for anyone. I do not know whether you are related to or not. The comments says I own a Computer shop. It is most unacceptable and unwelcoming coming to editors Talk page like this. 11:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Light2021 (talk)

@Light2021:, I think you are confusing TheodoreIndiana's reasonable question with some unrelated abusive vandal. The vandal was blocked long ago, please ignore him.

My sincere apologies for confusion. Light2021 (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

In response to User:TheodoreIndiana, "something else exists" is not a reason that yours should also exist. If you think another article is merely as problematic as yours was, then they also need to be fixed, rather than bringing other parts of the encyclopedia down also. But "notability" depends on independent in-depth reporting, not merely existing and being similar to some other company that is notable. See WP:CORP. I am not in a position to be able to help make the case that this company merits an article at this time...maybe someday it will (when it does, an article would then be appropriate). DMacks (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

23:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

An issue has been raised on my talk page that you might have some insight into. I'm staying uninvolved on Trump etc stuff. Doug Weller talk 20:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

19:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi DMacks.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I realize that. But buddy...

YOU'RE THE WRONG ONE!!! Don't believe me? look at this link: http://web.archive.org/web/20000816204710/http://www.noggin.com/pick/

Oh!!!! Here is another one!: http://web.archive.org/web/20000816204721/http://www.noggin.com/schedule/

Oh yeah, baybe!!! Look at THIS: https://groups.google.ctom/forum/#!search/Noggin$201999$20Schedule/alt.tv.mathnet/t_f_VrTan2E/jhyzyigG3fw

Oh yeah!!! THERE'S MORE: http://www.muppetcentral.com/news/1999/020299.shtml

So... you done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kooz125 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kooz125: the issue isn't whether or not Square One aired on Noggin, the issue is whether or not Noggin was the original broadcast network, i.e. if Noggin was airing brand new first-run episodes. Your gloating is completely unwarranted unless you can substantiate that PBS cancelled the series and Noggin picked it up again, or something similar. Reruns are not typically noteworthy, and WikiProject Television doesn't care that Seinfeld (for example) an NBC series might have aired in reruns on some other network. Same with Square One. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Yup, User:Kooz125, I'm completely done trying to explain why nobody cares whether it's true that noggin aired reruns. The fact is that the template is not supposed to list reruns. Multiple editors have told you this...maybe once you see these comments re-run enough you will understand it? Or not, and just get your edit-privleges revoked altogether for disruption....up to you. DMacks (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Well you never tried to explain it to me in the first place.

Kooz125 (talk) 20:18 , 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: this, augh! Thanks for catching and fixing my eff-up. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. But then I went and got the image deleted altogether as copyvio, so it was moot:) DMacks (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

15:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I am Dr. Nancy Mallerou's co-worker. We created a page named "Dr. Nancy Mallerou" on October 10th and it has been deleted due to copyright. All copyright is reserved by her and today she sent the copyright email for donating content, as listed on the wikipedia site. Do I have to re-create the page or will it be restored? What should I do now?

Thank you in advance, A.M.

--Malkisti (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Article:

• Dr. Nancy Mallerou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Also of relevance to this editor and subject:

• Life clinic group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

@Malkisti: When OTRS gives its approval, they will give you a tracking number. With that information, I can restore the page. Note that permission does not guarantee that the page will survive. Usually selfpublished websites, especially of public or commercial persons or organizations, are hopelessly beyond WP:NPOV content guidelines, and also are not sufficient to establish that the subject even merits a page at all per WP:GNG guidelines. You might be better off waiting for someone not affiliated with her to write it, due to your conflict of interest. DMacks (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Are the tests involving File:Cyclopropane-3D-balls2.png and File:Trinitrotoluene acsv-testing.svg still on-going? --Leyo 22:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, I had forgotten about them!

• File:Cyclopropane-3D-balls2.png is still in use at User:DMacks/Cyclopropane, which demonstrates an inconsistency in on-hover/popup behavior that affects chembox usability.
• File:Trinitrotoluene acsv-testing.svg still is a nice demo of an apparently still-present apparently-MW bug (need not be local, but I didn't want someone to change/fix the commons file).

So I guess "both still in use", but the chembox issue might be fixable (or at least WP:VPT territory). DMacks (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I have posted a reply on my talk page. Petergans (talk) 11:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I just saw the history of Enantiomer and was about to go back and block 112.118.142.248 as a result but saw that you had already done so. Good call. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello DMacks, I'm here on your talk-page once again. I need your help, actually, I wanted to write an article on Sandeep Maheshwari, he's an Indian entrepreneur, author and a motivational speaker. He is widely known for his motivation seminars and also is the founder of a website called ImagesBazaar which has the largest collection of Indian images & videos. I'm 101% sure that he is a notable figure (a simple Google Search might help). But it seems like someone revoked any article by this name to be rewritten, I have already requested it at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By nationality tho it's very unlikely that someone would write one. Since you're the only administrator I know who can help me, is it possible for you to write an article on Sandeep Maheshwari? Thanks and regards TheodoreIndiana (talk) 06:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

21:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

PWRR excellent job going out of your way to disrupt the page. I made good faith effort to add valid content to the page and you worked diligently to keep it off the page because of no citation. News flash 99% of that page is uncited but accurate because people like me actually try to contribute, while people like you maintain the poor reputation Wikipedia's editing class has created for itself. There is no citation available for lots of valid factual information, Wikipedia would be half of what it is if it only allowed cited information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B103:9CDF:1982:F988:2F70:3BD6 (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

18:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the move! Wasn't aware of that.... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: you're welcome! Wikipedia:Moving a page is the detailed information about it. DMacks (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

There is an unblock request at User talk:107.77.202.188 for a year-long block on a /24 range, which you placed for block evasion. There is a very large number of edits from the range, and looking at those from September, when you placed the block, I see that they are on numerous different topics, with no evident common connecting theme, so that it seems there has been a large number of different editors, with no one of them dominating the editing history. I can't see anything in your editing round about that period which gives any clue as to what block was being evaded, but even if a block was evaded, blocking such a large number of different editors for as long as a year to stop one person who does not appear to have been responsible for a significant proportion of the editors seems doubtful. If things really are as they look to me, then I think the block should be lifted, but obviously you may know things that aren't visible to me, which justify the block, so I will be grateful if you can let me know your thoughts on the matter. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer you gave on the IP talk page. A good example of why not to unblock without consulting the blocking admin first, even in a case which looks clear. You clearly did "know things that aren't visible to me, which justify the block", as I said above. I shall decline the unblock request. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! Thanks for double-checking and following up. DMacks (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have also now noticed something else, which I didn't notice before. Why did this innocent editor, caught in collateral damage, mention the Weather Channel article? Nobody had mentioned that on the IP talk page, or in the block log reason, or, as far as I can see, anywhere that the editor would have seen it. If I had noticed that at first, I would have declined the unblock request without having to trouble you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you know what IPs who are in a rangeblock see in their block message? Specifically, do they have any direct link to the block log of that range (Special:Block/107.77.202.188/24 or Special:Block/107.77.202.0/24 or )? DMacks (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

They certainly see the block log entry for the current block. It is some time since the last time I edited from a range-blocked IP address, but as far as I remember the information in the notice one sees when one tries to edit in that situation is s follows. (1) Generic information about blocks, along the lines of "editing from this IP address has been disabled" and "you can appeal this block by posting XXX on your talk page or by using UTRS". (2) The name of the blocking administrator. (3) The block log entry. If the block log is one of the templated block messages (from the bottom section of the drop-down list), such as {{anonblock}}, then what is seen is a tranclusion of the template. If it's one of standard block log reasons but not templated (from the top section of the drop-down list) such as [[WP:Vandalism|Vandalism]], then what is seen is a Wikilink, exactly as that link would appear if it were posted in a Wikipedia page. If I remember to, I'll try editing in the local library, which at the last I knew was range blocked, some time within the next few days, to remind myself of the exact details, and let you know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I figured it was something like that. Thanks for following up! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello DMAcks - I am a university lecturer and currently asking my students to contribute to this page. This is part of their univeristy assessment and i have required this before a number of times - i can give you examples of this where they have contributed to other pages - they will be adding 25 different states in the USA and going to discuss begging as part of their assignment. the fact that it is now protected will prevent them from doing this - could you please reduce the level until at least the 23rd December which is the date that their assignment will be due (taking into account those that may have a two day extension). many thanks CrimUser — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrimUser (talk • contribs) 02:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

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

It's only semiprotected, meaning as soon as your students have made 10 edits to other articles over a few days, they will have unrestricted ability to edit that one. I don't think it's unreasonable for students to be expected to practice their edit skills a bit before going to work on "live" articles. Please let me know the Wikipedia:Course pages for your project and I will be happy to advise any affected students. Due to the many-years-running problems with that article during the month of December, I can't see reducing it below pendingchanges. But that would make the problem there even worse, as bad edits would become intermingled in your students' work. DMacks (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

19:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

On dismissing Oxytocin from see also - you said it was not - even an example.....the link used went straight to its reference as such...? --Iztwoz (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking more closely, I do agree it is. Not an appropriate link as you had done (a loose "See also)", but an example nontheless, that could be viable with an independent explanation why it is notable. DMacks (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Already added it into article just copying from entry page. --Iztwoz (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks great thanks! DMacks (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)