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)