User talk:DMacks

This is DMacks's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63: 14 days

Civility Warning??

I do trust that you will make the same warning to andy who has repeatedly impuned me personally by suggesting that I am not what I say that I am and that the many editors who have either edited the articles that he dislikes or who have argued against their deletion simply do not know what they are talking about. Otherwise you must admit to sharing his bias.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I call it as I see it based on my observations of your behavior other than in relation to simply editing articles. I will warn anyone who spends most of the time complaining about people and trumpeting some sort of perceived persecution rather than working on the articles' content, focus, coherence, notability, etc. DMacks (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this?

Is this... Devyn. Remember creating the article Lindsey Sprague in US History when she was the teacher intern? This has to be someone from Marcus Whitman High School<lol I wrote that one. You're an administrator, wow. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God, I'm sorry, you deleted the article, duh. Man, could you tell me what user created it. It has to be someone from my school. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, could you tell me who made that article; all public logs does not tell. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not who you think I am:) But anyway, the Lindsey Sprague article I deleted was created by User:Publius74. DMacks (talk) 05:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. How do you figure that out? Where do you find that info? Daniel Christensen (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admins can see the edit-history of deleted articles. DMacks (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also

That account was created on the same day as that article was deleted. Did it used to be that autoconfirmation was not necessary for creating articles? Daniel Christensen (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea about that autoconfirmation requirement. DMacks (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Taib Mahmud

Thank you! :-) I don't know much about this guy and whether the corruption stuff is true, but this article seems to be very prone to vandalism. Maybe one should think about applying for a semi-protection so that IP-users can't edit it anymore. --DavidDCM (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four Asian Tigers

Hi,

I think there's a misunderstanding here. The article does talk about the "entire" Republic of China (ROC), if by "entire" you mean the extent of effective control by the Republic of China as opposed to the People's Republic of China (PRC). Moreover, the anon editor that you reverted was simply restoring the status quo prior to a POV-pushing edit made by a pro-PRC editor who substituted the ROC national flag with that of the Chinese Taipei Olympic Team.

To be fair, as the article talks about economic rather than political entities, the appellation "Taiwan" is probably the more preferable, less ambiguous and more neutral term compared to "ROC". But I don't think you should have reverted to the flag of the Chinese Taipei Olympic Team regardless of which term we are using.

Best -- ran (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has a long pattern of inappropriate edits and based on the ones I did recognize this was at least partially more inappropriate-ness. I was acting purely on the basis of the content-removal and word-change (because the topic is specifically the Taiwan-driven economy, and "Taiwan" is the term used in cited ref). I actually have no idea what the flag situation is, feel free to make it correct...annoying when a nugget of viable edit gets done as part of a larger apparent simple vandalism:( DMacks (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the editor in question is a sockpuppet of User:Eeeeeewtw, who I believe might itself be a Nationalist sock. Apparently, this user has been using "throwaway" IP accounts ever since I tagged the primary account as a possible sockpuppet of User:Nationalist. He or she even took the trouble to make a personal attack against another editor on my talk page[1]. Alpha77a (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only recently got alerted to the ongoing problem in the Taiwan-vs-ROC article messes, so I don't know all the major long-term-problematic editors yet. Based on behavior, does seem reasonable. There are lots of anons from two distinct IP-spaces who are at least clones of each other if not actual socks. The IPs keep changing, so checkuser might be hard to nail down, but even so, WP:DUCK, and I'll indef Eeeeeewtw next time he's out-of-line even based on his own pattern of mis-behavior. Any ideas if Taiwanrox8 or others are named-account socks also? Would be great to have at least a few current accounts to cross-ref to boost the likelihood of getting a CU hit. DMacks (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Taiwanrox8 is almost certainly not a sockpuppet of User:Eeeeeewtw or User:Nationalist. User:Taiwanrox8's edits actually remove the expression "Republic of China" or "ROC" in favour of "Taiwan" (or some variation thereof), the exact opposite of what User:Eeeeeewtw and User:Nationalist like to do. Alpha77a (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I-210 or whatever he wants to call himself now

I gave him a final warning already: [2]. Maybe it's time to indef? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let him passively vanish as he says he's trying to do, but I'll indef +no-edit-talk if he tries to take parting shots beyond his existing incoherent manifesto-of-sorts (which I'm leaving alone...leave him his shovel should he want the hole any deeper. DMacks (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Lesch

I am new to this sort of thing. Do we deal with this sort of stuff as vandalism or COI? How far does he have to go to get banned for COI? Dolive21 (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give him "once more". What I'm seeing is blockable as simple vandalism, and COI is just icing on that foul-tasting cake. Welcome to this side of wikipedia:/ DMacks (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hydrogen cyanide/CAS searchable

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Hydrogen cyanide/CAS searchable, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Test completed months ago

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mark Hurd (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

this guy User:Taiwanrox8 have Vandalism a lot of article, i think you need block this guy, yhank you.