User talk:DMacks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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)

Hi DMacks! Completely agree with you and have no intention of advertising. I was just adding the website to the place where the brand was already mentioned. This will help users to go to the site easily. There is no new brand reference added to any of the pages by me and you can rest assured that will not be done ever

external links on New Power Party in Taiwan[edit]

Hi DMacks,

I had added some of those external links related to New Power Party, which they are mostly related to New Power Party with those external links on various reforms that are going on at Taiwan. I hope that you would at least read them on those various issues at Taiwan instead just using bots to delete them. Wikipedia is after all an encyclopedia for mass awareness to keep people informed on things around world.


Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia - Wiki....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia


File:Size of English Wikipedia broken down.png....

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Size_of_English_Wikipedia_broken_down.png


I love science, too, but politics in Taiwan isn't exactly like academic papers, which are very rigor and even dry reading. Those external links are almost all related to Taiwan or exactly to topics of that page. My goals are to focus on struggle of Taiwan and why these political parties even existed in first place not to write strict academic papers to impress your peer scientists like most academic papers in very complex terminologies. I will just said that it is important for Taiwan to have those links regarding to reforms and human rights at Taiwan. China suppressed freedom of speech and so on. Better privacy laws are really needed in Taiwan to protect on those that are demanding for changes in Taiwan. I hope you will have understanding on that. Thanx! =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.114.119.130 (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


Privacy International - Wiki....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_International

Julian Assange - Wiki....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

Not much love lost between Wikipedia and WikiLeaks - The Guardian....

https://www.theguardian.com/business/andrew-clark-on-america/2010/aug/30/wikipedia-wikileaks


Maybe Jimmy Wales needs to pay royalty to Julian Assange for using word such as wiki.... just joking! USA certainly got housing bubbles, student loan crisis, income inequality, and much more to that devastated middle income class. Anyhow.... noticed that Taiwan is rather red and rank very low on privacy laws.... sadly. I mean you can change world and save life on here not siding with any Pro-China and Anti-Democratic agenda for sure. Imagine that!  ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.114.119.130 (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2017 (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)

Amino Acids, Response 13DEC2015[edit]

Hello DMacks! Thanks for catching my mistakes regarding the amino acid pages Histidine and Pyrrolysine. I added the links and fixed the sub-scripting as you suggested. When I get the chance to get to a PC with ChemDraw, I'll fix the images as well. Anything else you might suggest? Abuzzanco (talk)

Scoobalawyer==26 July 2015[edit]

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!



Re: OxNotes.com on Wallington Grammar page[edit]

Hello DMacks,

I am a representative of OxNotes (a student run website and soon to be textbook) , I apologise for method in which it was recently added to the Wikipedia page, I have ensured all 'marketing speak' has been removed and what is left is only factual information. Please feel free to contact me via LinkedIn, Twitter or email k@oxnotes.com if you require any further information. Thank you.


Kind Regards

Kazim

Kazim Chaudri Editor: OxNotes by Fluxty (Non-Profit) www.linkedin.com/in/kazimchaudri

Nuvola apps edu languages.svgHello, DMacks. You have new messages at NicholasCarlough's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[edit]

Sorry not sure how els to contact you to discuss the farm page.

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

added external links[edit]

I had added one reference link to page Бесхвостые , tutorvista had added its 4 links, then why not i can add one more reference link from other website. Its not promotion, but the page which i have, also tells about fron digestive system. So is that bad to put a reference link on that page. Please guide me.

Support request with team editing experiment project[edit]

Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_team_editing), I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Wikipedia community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my project noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Wikipedia everywhere) Regards from User:Micru on meta.

Maybe you should not rollback my code in the word "leapyear"[edit]

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.

Need Help[edit]

Czechia "Vandalisim"[edit]

How was it vandalism I just updated the name Ninvento (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ link I included in the message. DMacks (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Javascript test pages[edit]

Hi Dmacks

Thanks for starting the discussion at WP:VPT#Categories_for_.js_pages about the categorisation of code. I learnt a lot from it.

However, the discussion has now run its course, so I was wondering if you would now like to disable (or delete) the two test pages you produced — User:DMacks/template-test1 and User:DMacks/test.js — so that they no longer populate non-existent categories?

It would be helpful to have them no longer appear in Special:WantedCategories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for gnoming the categories! DMacks (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Great! Thanks --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This Month in Education: [March 2017][edit]

Wikipedia Education Globe 2.pdf
This Month in Education

Volume 6 | Issue 2 |March 2017

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. Be sure to check out the full version, and past editions. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team!

In This Issue



Featured Topic Newsletter update

Overview on Wikipedia Education Program 2016 in Taiwan


From the Community

High School and Collegiate Students Enhance Waray Wikipedia during Edit-a-thons

Approaching History students as pilot of Education program in Iran

An experience with middle school students in Ankara

Wikishtetl: Commemorating Jewish communities that perished in the Holocaust


From the Education Team

UCSF Students Visit WMF Office as they start their Wikipedia editing journey

Meet the team


In the News

Från dammiga arkiv till artiklar på nätet


If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

The new issue of the newsletter is out! Thanks to everyone who submitted stories and helped with the publication. We hope you enjoy this issue of the Education Newsletter.-- Sailesh Patnaik using Saileshpat (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-14[edit]

17:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Enzyme, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cofactor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Freedom Machine[edit]

Not a test page. Spam. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks for canning it. DMacks (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-15[edit]

18:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henderson Bridge (Rhode Island), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page India Point (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

@DMacks: @DMacks2: Somebody instead of clean up the article deleted 95% portion of your last edited article[10], photos, references, signature, Infobox information, awards and distinctions, books, reliable sources, quotes, occupation, example of poetry, khowar translation, links, reliable references and external links and many others has been deleted, please check this edit and revert the article to its original position and fix the protection template to save the article from vandalisum--175.107.55.33 (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Sock blocked. DMacks (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@DMacks: @DMacks2: sir due to oversight or human error you blocked the IP 175.107.55.33 please unblock the IP as someone deleted 95% portion of your last edited article[11] please revert the change to your last edit. Thanks --175.107.53.145 (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
No. DMacks (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-16[edit]

19:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-17[edit]

16:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

This Month in Education: [April 2017][edit]

Wikipedia Education Globe 2.pdf
This Month in Education

Volume 6 | Issue 3 | April 2017

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. Be sure to check out the full version, and past editions. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team!

In This Issue



Featured Topic

How responsible should teachers be for student contributions?


From the Community

Cairo and Al-Azhar Universities students wrap up their ninth term and start their tenth term on WEP

Glimpse of small language Wikipedia incubation partnership in Taiwan

Key to recruiting seniors as Wikipedians is long-term work

Education at WMCON17

OER17

Western Armenian WikiCamper promotes Wikiprojects in his school

Building a global network for Education


From the Education Team

Mobile Learning Week 2017


If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

The new issue of the newsletter is out! Thanks to everyone who submitted stories and helped with the publication. We hope you enjoy this issue of the Education Newsletter.-- Sailesh Patnaik using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-18[edit]

19:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Technical support scam article[edit]

Hi DMacks, I don't know why you removed my edit here - I added something important that wasn't covered in the article, but should've been. Please have a look at the source, my addition is demonstrated there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDennis (talkcontribs) 13:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The idea that SEO can elevate bad sites, either malware, ad sites, or all sorts of incorrect information, is already well-covered. I don't see what is substantially new or deserving of additional prominence, and I don't see a high-quality well-known reference site to support it (WP:RS and WP:UNDUE guidelines). I do see a new editor who seems to be fond of adding refs to the same site on many pages (refspam is a serious problem on Wikipedia). DMacks (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The unique aspect of black-hat SEO combined with the fake tech support issue is something that search engines still didn't find a way to tackle properly. This is an industry that makes millions every month from unsuspecting users, and the idea of a reverse phone number search hasn't crossed anyone's mind yet. Looking over official sites, nobody mentions the SEO aspect, as though the ban on fake tech support ads by Google & Bing solved the problem. But it hasn't! The article demonstrates the research which was made and an issue that continues to plague search results and users.
The other edits I made that reference our site are also highly relevant and while I see your point about "a new editor who seems to be fond of adding refs to the same site on many pages", I'd like to point out that the specific pages I add are not only beneficial and highly relevant, but also unique, without a better substitute from a more authoritative site. (see this tool for example, which was also removed from the antivirus comparison page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDennis (talkcontribs) 14:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
"without a better substitute from a more authoritative site." is one of the problems. If this were a major or notable situation, it would be covered by them. Especially someone like google getting tricked by a scam involving masquerading as google? Compare to the recent gmail phishing, which was widely covered. I suspect wikipedia just isn't ready to jump into the realm of cutting-edge information, instead taking a more conservative approach to reporting. DMacks (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your taking the time to discuss this, and if you think that the black-hat SEO networks are an insignificant issue, I can't convince you otherwise. However, if you truly believe that the importance of a research is determined solely by the popularity or fame of the researcher, I beg to differ. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
Do you mind if I raise the issue of the other submission which was removed? The tool that provides an aggregation of lab tests is a perfect resource for comparing antivirus test scores because (1) it combines scores from multiple AMTSO certified labs, (2) it allows users to view tests over time instead of a single test (the labs don't have such an option), and (3) each original test is accessible from the data points on the graph. All the data is based in fact and no other tool does that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDennis (talkcontribs) 14:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-19[edit]

02:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request on hold[edit]

There is an unblock request at User talk:1.136.96.43, in connection with a year-long range block that you placed on the range 1.136.96.0/24 in September 2016 for block evasion. I am much inclined to unblock, but I am consulting you, in case you know of relevant facts that I can't see. Looking at your editing history around the time when you placed the block I see no edits that appear to be related to the block, and which might throw light on the reason for the block, nor is it obvious from the IP editing what block was being evaded, which makes it difficult for me to fully assess the situation. However, the following are my observations based on what I can see.

There have been 1493 edits from 241 IP addresses in the range. Looking at the editing history, I see a wide range of different edits, with no obvious connections to one another, so that there is no reason at all to suppose that all, or even a large minority, of the edits are from one person. That being so, I see no reason at all to suppose that the editor who is requesting the unblock is the one who caused you to block the range. Indeed, in view of the evidence that many editors have used the range, I find it difficult to see how a long-term block on the whole range could have seemed justified in the first place. Also, any disruptive editing from the range which took place back in September was certainly not so extensive that unblocking now would pose a major risk. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing this was Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dylan Florida/Archive? I can see some of the previous range blocks were triggered by him and he uses Telstra. The history here in early 2016/2015 shows previous uses of this range. Not clear what triggered the most recent range block. Kuru (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Yup, Dylan Florida as usual. DMacks (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson:, see also User talk:1.136.96.88, where you and I have already discussed this same rangeblock and another admin declined the unblock. DMacks (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Here is the block log for the /24 range. In my opinion, it is not unreasonable to keep a /24 blocked for as much as a year if we have evidence that the problem is likely to continue. Since the block is anon-only we are just forcing the user to create an account, if they need to work from this range. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@EdJohnston and Kuru: & of course DMacks. Thanks for the clarifications. This is a good example of why it is virtually always best to check with the blocking administrator "in case you know of relevant facts that I can't see", because that is exactly what turns out to be the case. (And I didn't remember my own raising of a similar question for the same range block in September last year.) This is one of the rare occasions when I think that the considerable collateral damage caused by such a long-term block on a range with many editors is probably the lesser evil. I shall decline the unblock request. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: And thanks for asking! I certainly didn't mean my comment to be snide in any way, though I can now see it being read that way, but merely to keep discussions linked and available due to the...nature of the subject. DMacks (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

27.252.121.212[edit]

27.252.121.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Quite opinionated. wp:KDL irrelevant, wp:disambiguation irrelevant... Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

And disruptive. If I weren't involved prior to seeing how widespread the pattern was, I would have blocked him myself ASAP. DMacks (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hagiographies[edit]

Any suggestions on what to do when I run across a hagiography such as Bernard Cheong? Other than fix it myself? Face-smile.svg Need a template:hagiography cleanup tag? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 09:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for undeletion the article Koushani Mukherjee[edit]

I am requesting you for undeletion the article Koushani Mukherjee. She is a bengali film actress who already made her debut in four films. I want to provide reliable sources on the article.

Tushar Singha (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Because this was deleted as a result of a discussed consensus (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koushani Mukherjee), I cannot undelete it unilaterally. You were advised at WP:Deletion review who to contact instead, because I am not "the administrator who closed the discussion". DMacks (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-20[edit]

21:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Boner[edit]

You did not have to protect Boner, as I had quit editing the page after this revision by Bkonrad (talk · contribs).
PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 17:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Your edits at: Historically black colleges and universities[edit]

DMacks,

You appear to be determined to pursue a pissing match, both grammatically and procedurally, on Historically black colleges and universities. Why? Not only are you edit-warring - and as an admin, you know better - but you're also treacherously close to 3RR. Just because you simply can't acknowledge that a dictionary disquisition is superior to the opinion of a Writer's Digest blogger/editor? Additionally, you entirely misstated procedure - and as an admin you should also know that too - in telling me that I "need consensus" because of BRD. That reveals a lack of fundamental understanding about what BRD actually entails. Please review it, as it clearly says in the very first sentence that BRD "is an optional method of reaching consensus." So, contrary to your claim, invoking BRD doesn't require that I "need" anything. But I do need editors/admins to follow the rules like the rest of us and not issue overbearing - and ill-informed - pronouncements in a transparent attempt to stifle or intimidate legitimate editorial disagreement.

But if this grammatical question really is so important to you - and not just a thinly veiled effort, per WP:WINNING; then you're certainly free to WP:RFC the matter. Or take it to any number of other dispute resolution processes available to you. Finally, I could revert your last 2 edits without reaching the 3RR threshold. But that would be inappropriate and only serve to escalate this nonsense. At least one of us should be the grownup. So instead, it would be more appropriate, especially given your position of trust here, if you self-reverted and then utilized the tools for DR at your disposal. Then, at least, others could review this and objectively determine that both editors actually acted like adults. X4n6 (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to seek a WP:3O, or ask at some WP:MOS talkpage? I cited WP:BRD as a normal behavioral standard for dispute resolution because you clearly don't have consensus (yet), and consensus is an official policy. You're trying to make a change, it's disputed, and so far the best I see you say is that your wording is "not worse" (allowed but not more correct, even according to your own cited ref), which is not the same as "better" (fixing an actual mistake, for example). If it's not actually an improvement, you're just getting into a personal-preference match with the original author and a time-sink that does not benefit readers or editors. I also noted that even your second edit seemed even further flawed by punctuation, a change of meaning that I strongly dispute even if I overlook alternately allowed wordings. Your right that being WP:POINTy would not serve use well. DMacks (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I presume you're familiar with WP:BOOMERANG? Although any reference to your own culpability was notably absent. No acknowledgment of your edit-warring. But your view that BRD is a "normal behavioral standard" entirely misses the point. BRD is merely an: "an optional method" for reaching consensus. More critically, while you noted that I don't have consensus, per WP:EDITCONSENSUS, neither do you. I also question how thoughtful your objections have been, especially since both edits I made were reliably sourced here and here; and your only real objection was that neither was the original text. Actually, my amended edit was supported by a definitive source - Merriam Webster - and ironically, your own source. But, curiously, you still objected. Meaning that what you called "flawed by punctuation" was grammatically correct by all the sources presented. Re-read them. I had already expressed concern that your only interest was WINNING. But then you proved it. However, you are correct: we both have options. X4n6 (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)08:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

wack-a-mole[edit]

Latest User:Salvidrim!/Macy VG IP vandal sock [45] Meters (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Whacked, thanks. DMacks (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-21[edit]

22:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thiomersal[edit]

Hi DMacks, You took out my edit in March on Thiomersal saying you can't find anywhere on the quoted CDC page that the multi-dose Fluvirin vial contains 25 micrograms of Thiomersal... Just go on that CDC page again please (I put the citation back in the article), press ctrl-F / CMD-F (search text in browser), write "Fluvirin" (without quotation marks obviously...), press enter and read the figure next to multi-dose Fluvirin (the lower one out of the 2 Fluvirin vaccines). If you have a hard time interpreting the table, please research the topic a bit more before you delete or ask a pharmacist, physician or someone at the CDC. Thx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abalazs (talkcontribs) 20:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC) (sorry for my tone, didn't mean to be condescending, just was surprised by your statement that you "didn't find anywhere on the cited page evidence for the edited info"...)

It's actually not there as I view it. I did exactly that search, and "fluvirin" is not present on the page. But then I looked at https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pdf/protect/vaccine/rr6505-table-1.pdf that is linked as Table 1, and on there it does appear. Maybe your browser actually embeds that PDF in the main page. Interesting. Thanks for prompting me to look more closely! No worries about the tone. Given how you see it, it's no wonder my edit seemed so bizarre. DMacks (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Yet again.[edit]

I am an internationally recognized visual artist and designer. In the course of my career I have exhibited with other artists of note and have been very influential in the art world, having appeared in various publications of note.

However over the past few years. No matter how many times someone puts a wiki article up on me, it gets deleted. I have begun to feel that there is some sort of racist act taking place. The few black American artists that appear on Wikipedia are far and in between.. Yet to have the article removed over and over again with little to no reason. Other than a vague statement suggesting that I am not worth any notability is hurtful and a blatant slap in my face. The Jalal Pleasant article wasn't live even long enough for new additional verifiable edits/links could be added before it was deleted by you. This in my opinion is unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.104.49.120 (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The most recent attempt at the Jalal Pleasant article sat for half a day with no "claim of notability". That means it's exactly within the realm of WP:CSD#A7, a reason that is clearly visible at User talk:Nieuwutrechter (the editor account who created it). The subject might be suitable for an article (assuming it meets standards such as WP:ARTIST for example). But the article at the time was not, and there was no evidence it was actively being edited: I can see the timestamps of the deleted edits, and there were many hours between last edit and my tagging it for deletion, and then several more hours with still no edits before the actual deletion happened. The previous attempt had sat for a whole week after tagging and with no further edits to attempt to address the problem or dispute that there was a problem. There is surely real bias on WP, and editors and article subjects might perceive additional bias that does not exist, but the policies and guidelines for wikipedia articles are quite neutral: the article must make claims of notability and there must be reliable independent sources to support it.
Maybe it would be better for you to collect your sources first, then write a non-live "draft" article and get some independent opinion on its suitability, without the time crunch of having to be written in a viable form for the live page right away? See Wikipedia:Your first article for more info. DMacks (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Few days unplugged[edit]

Just a semi-annual forcing myself to be mostly-unplugged/light-lurk-mode for a few days, not a fancy "vacation" in real life. DMacks (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)