User talk:DMacks/Archive 5

Hi there. I made some changes in the IIPM article but wanted your inputs on the same so wanted to request you to if possible visit the page and help me out. Tks Wifione (talk) 09:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to say that the reason was confidential but this edit summary is much more correct. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 04:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, your secret is safe with me. DMacks (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

As you were

I'm new to Wikipedia so sorry if my questions are a bit too obvious for the senior Wikipedia users. I contacted the author of an image of the actual Airbus 310 aircraft of the Yemenia Flight 626 and asked him if he could possibly let me use the image in Wikipedia and the article of the airplane's crash. He agreed to do us but requested that the original link to the photo is provided and that he gets full accreditation for the shot. My question is what kind of "copyright tag" should I use when I upload the image and use it the crash article. Thanks in advance. Gunner0095 (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Will check it out and follow up in a few hr. DMacks (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there DMacks, I noticed you blocked

My network connection keeps freezing right now. Maybe will be stable in a few hr and I'll try to reverse that mess. DMacks (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Y Done Moved Busta (disambiguation) → Busta. DMacks (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. — Σxplicit 19:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The ed. made numerous improvements in the proposed article, at User:Extolmonica/Youth United -- enough to cause me to change my view at Deletion Review to keep--you might want to check again--I'd like to know if you agree or disagree. DGG (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If an source clearly contradicts a definition is it still reliable? Read

You're welcome to include alternative info and/or qualify statements as "according to..." (i.e., present different positions from different sources), but as an editor, you can't make conclusions or do your own reasoning.

WP:V enough to state it (with cite given). See also various discussions on Talk:William James Sidis, which lean towards stating (with whatever qualification or specific terminology needed) the claimed high value per cites. If there is an issue with the reliability of the cited works, the talk-page is a good place to work out an improved wording that clarifies that issue. DMacks (talk

) 19:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I am a bit confused here but are you saying that any source on Internet beats simple math? Did you look at the link I provided? Just punch in median 100 SD 15 and IQ (x1) 250. In results in a density of 1.2212453e-15, that is 1 in 9 007 199 454 524 001. That does not fit in to the World population. Type in 195 and 196 and see that the density is between 1.1995993e-10 and 7.7689299e-11 (1 in 5 422 117 250 and 1 in 12 871 785 598). So, by the very definition of IQ, there need to exist 9 007 199 454 524 001 people for an IQ of 250 to be achievable. Again, IQ is based on normal distribution and is not an absolute scale. --Ainali (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Published books are not "just any source on the internet". And there are numerous cited sources on the various IQ articles and mentioned in the Sidis discussions explaining why IQ isn't a well-defined measurement at the extremes (i.e., not simple probability distribution). DMacks (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Never thought to use way back machine, your comment suggested I should have used appropriate tagging to ask for help instead of removing the reference, what is the appropriate tag. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.204 (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

{{

WP:DEADLINK for more info. Thanks for noticing this one! DMacks (talk

) 16:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi DMacks. While reverting the edit war of User:Ohtx and User:Fuzbaby, you have also reverted this edit which was not part of the edit war or involved with the dispute. The Turkish language is totally irrelevant in Xinjiang and in China. It should be removed. Take care. Tajik (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not revert anything, I merely tried to stop the edit war by preventing edits by new/unestablished editors. Long-standing/established editors are welcome to continue editing and fix vandalism. I don't know anything about the topic itself, so I'm not taking a stand on which is the "correct" version and I'm not endorsing anything in the version as it stood when I protected it. DMacks (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Tajik, there is/was no edit war on that page; I was simply removing vandalism from a new user due to a recent news event. I'm sorry if I deleted something that you put in, and as the page is semi-protected you can still make whatever change you wanted. Fuzbaby (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I request you to please see to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_July_1 , I have made some contribution to this discussion. Regards Maihunggogoi (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Article is in main-space now, and looks fine to me. Good work! DMacks (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. How much evidence is required to add something to wiki? And the book is an invalid document? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb-Gibbs (talk • contribs)

If you're claiming there is supression, you need a reliable cite that supports the claim that it is suppression of his ideas or devices. People die (even under unreported or sudden circumstances) and ideas get abandoned all the time...that's not suppression of them. The book-link gave me a page that said the book could not be displayed, which is why I said on the talk-page that need actual information about the book itself, not just a URL to the google-books copy of it. DMacks (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont have a problem open the URL each time. Extracts from it: "A death that we should say was very mysterious. Ed had become quite paranoid about being located". I will find the original document that prompted me to write this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb-Gibbs (talk • contribs) 19:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

EVula's resolved comment in that section made me giggle, but your subsequent "resolved" comment made me snort coffee over my monitor. Bravo. ;) ~ mazca ^talk 09:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit that there is some truth to your acusation that I want to evade the discussion going on in the talk pages of the Letterman article. After reading the link you posted I decided to try to see if I can get a compromise edit of a few sentences. My view in posting the dispute to a larger forum was to put more eyes on the problem, and bring in a larger pool of editors. If the idea of a compromise edit is not accepted where do you think I should proceed? Should I even be pursuing this matter? Thanks for your help. Datacharge (talk) 07:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Getting more eyes is a good way to try to break deadlocks on editorial disputes (if and how much to include, possible alternate wordings), but

WP:CCC, so if and when this eventually does prove to be more important than just a flash-in-the-pan, might be worth re-pursuing. Unless a major topic is rapidly evolving and has serious impact, WP is better served by being a bit more deliberate and waiting for media frenzies to die down. DMacks (talk

) 07:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for the advice. I hate the idea of something that was discussed in the media so much not having a single mention on Wikipedia. I never realized that internal debates lead to these kinds of omissions, it really highlights the fact that while Wikipedia is an excellent tool it's no substitute for Google. But I do think your right, it's really not worth the endless argument shifting consensus would require. So I am taking your advice and giving up the attempt. Thanks. Datacharge (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you for the reversion. bibliomaniac15 05:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I felt that it fell under the category blatant hoax, and could therefore be deleted under G3. Let me know if you disagree, and I'll restore. decltype (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Not opposed. Looking further, editor that created it has a history of problematic edits. DMacks (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the template and sorry for the problems. Seem like the move instructions aren't as clear as they used to be.--

You're welcome! Even the process, though "simpler", isn't really "clear" if you're used to how it had been previously. The bots aren't able to cope with things that aren't "perfectly done" yet:( DMacks (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey ya DM, how do I find out if an article's OTRS content has been cleared so I don't make the same mistake like I did on the Białystok Ghetto page? Cheers  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 09:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked

WP:OTRS and they added the tag confirming it. My default assumption is "copyvio is copyvio"...I asked OTRS only because the talk-page made a specific and credible-sounding claim for it. DMacks (talk

) 09:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sweet as, cheers for that.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 00:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You left a message on my talk page about these articles and whether any more needs to be done, and asking for a status update. I don't know where you wanted me to put the update, so I am replying directly to you, but please copy this to the RFM or to my talk page if you think that better.

As far as I am concerned, I am just waiting for the transwiki then it can be closed. I don't know if it is worth waiting before closing, that is your call. I would like to see the result of the transwiki since if they don't transfer the entire article (e.g. only the bald definition), it may still have to stay and the same main point still exists, then.

I know it says the transwiki process is "automated" but I presume this means a human editor takes it and adds appropriate tags for Wiktionary (e.g. parts of speech, etymology, puts references in their form etc, link back to WP:en) and so I don't know what the result of that would be.

Of course if the entire False scent article gets transwiki'd then I will delete it (unless the transwiki does anyway) but I could see the situation where the bald definition gets translated but not the reference to Fowler. I have some problems with the Fowler article anyway (A Dictionary of Modern English Usage), but that will have to wait for another time.

Your call, I am happy either way, I just wanted to make it visible for discussion but nobody else seems particularly to care so I am confident to go ahead whatever I decide is best, I think? (e.g. if I decide a DAB page is best then I doubt anyone is going to complain if they haven't already.)

SimonTrew (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the code, and the ability to read my code! —

Please don't remove my contribution to the talk page on the Rob Levin article again. You might not like the content, but that doesn't give you the right to eliminate it from the talk page. 74.129.107.64 (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not stating an opinion. Please follow Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. DMacks (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I am not sure where to post this, but since you started the discussion, I thought I would bring it up here.

As discussed at Category talk:Human genes by chromosome, the consensus was that this category should be name Category:Genes by human chromosome. The rationale is that most of the pages that have been so categorized contain information not only about the human genes, but also the corresponding genes in other organisms.

Despite the above consensus,

Thanks for your comments. I think those two things I deleted were totally silly and irrelevant and added nothing to the articles. If I write something to that effect in the comments when I delete it again, are you just going to go and revert it again? If so, I will drop it, since I'm not looking to get into a pissing match with a stranger online. But I believe that the deleted paragraphs are totally ignorant and unnecessary sentences that deserve to be deleted. 198.3.128.3 (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to start a discussion on the talk-page of the article to get others' input if you like. The purpose of article talk-pages is to discuss the article once it's clear there are conflicting ideas about what or how to include content. DMacks (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please revisit the [discussion] I have added a rebuttal with extra references. I understand if you think I am overzealous, but I think if you look at all of my edits you will find I have contributed to other pages with the same topic with out linking back to Happy Endings? I though that was the point of wikipedia, write what you know (what can be referenced). I look forward to hearing what you think.

for warning Cmancmancman. I was just about to warn him until I saw what you did. Again, thanks! Cheers. Rascal the Peaceful (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The link I have been posting is for a new forum called the Knowledge Research Forum. It contains sub-forums where any individual can post original research on the topic - which cannot be posted on Wikipedia. It has always been accepted for appropriate forum links to be placed in the external links section of Wikipedia pages. So I believe your warning is unfounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.54.12 (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:ELNO specifically contradicts your claim. Also, your site doesn't sound notable in its genre and you're spamming for the whole site, not adding specific links to specific parts of the site you claim are relevant. Feel free to seek third opinion. DMacks (talk

) 21:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines you and Dougweller referred me to are subject to interpretation. It is clear that whenever administrators believe an external link to a forum is appropriate, it remains. You noted that I was linking to the entire forum (unacceptable), rather than linking to the appropriate area of the forum, which in this case would be the Philosophy forum. There are existing links to at least one other philosophy forum on a number of Wikipedia 'philosophy' pages. The only difference between that forum and the one I was linking to is the age of the forum and the number of existing posts. If I link directly to the Philosophy forum of the Knowledge Research Forum, I believe this should be acceptable. This forum contains no advertising, and is especially intended as a place where original research can be posted, which cannot be posted on Wikipedia. I respect your need to keep spam off Wikipedia, but linking to a forum where the applicable topic can be discussed and original research can be posted should not be considered a spam links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.54.12 (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Your "only difference" sounds like a pretty big difference indeed when considering the value and acceptance of these types of sites. Note that my comment was multiple independent reasons...resolving the direct-link issue does not help compliance with

WP:ELNO, which is a guideline that has strong consensus to follow and you don't seem to have compelling arguments to make an exception. DMacks (talk

) 21:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me my periodic table formatting polemic organized and hope you understand that I'm not trying to promote a personal POV but merely move from a trivial to more important considerations of the attributes proposed to be helpful to the cognizance of the intelligent user. I, like the several interested people, have memorized the periodic table, and am interested both in its listing of "discovered" and "potentially capable of being discovered" elements (as was Mendeleev) and don't think the table should be limited by someone's decision as to how many elements should be listed based on chemical considerations (or even physical considerations) if it seems logical and/or argumentative as to how many there or might be. And the IUPAC has evidently fouled up by trying to surround their limited existing table with restrictions which will have to be corrected. So What!! Well I suggest that there should be a caveat (probably on a talk page) saying that here are various ways of extending a periodic table chart and here they are and you take your pick. And let the best and most useful table prevail.WFPM (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)PS I was able to memorize the periodic table because I discovered that the individual chemical series can be broken down into the following order: Row 1 = 2; Row 2 = 2; Row 3 = 8 (equals 2+4 and 2); Row 4 = 8 (equals 2+4 and 2); Row 5 = 18 (equals 2+4+4 + 2+4 and 2) Row 6 = 18 (equals 2+4+4 + 2+4 and 2); Row 7 = 32 (equals 2+4+4+4 + 2+4+4 + 2+4 and 2); and Row 8 = 32 (equals 2+4+4+4 + 2+4+4 + 2+4 and 2). And the very last 2 are elements 119 and 120. So I'm pretty sure that elements 119 and 120 belong to the position as shown in the Janet periodic periodic table.WFPM (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC) And would you believe that Row 9 will be 50 (equals 2+4+4+4+4 + 2+4+4+4 + 2+4+4 + 2+4 and 2). I hope so. And I think you might find some chemical significance related to the series breakdown. And I would appreciate your comments re this subject matter before your archive bot archives it into forgetfulness, because I'm very interested in this subject and I'm assuming you are too.WFPM (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

For protecting Aitias' talk page. I've blocked all the IPs. It's sad someone would want to vandalize like that. Thanks. Acalamari 18:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The information pertaining to listership is incorrect and sourced from a blog. The correct information is found at the Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs

Which indicates that his actual listenership is 8.25 million and he is placed 4th behind Glen Beck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tseay11 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's nice, but why are you telling me this? You'll have to be very specific about what action of mine you are discussing. DMacks (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Anytime;)And you are right--they are out in full force today. I have over 700 edits in reverts(including warning templates) today. I haven't seen vandalism this strong before. Since I was free today...I pretty much sat at my computer reverting vandalism;)SchnitzelMannGreek. 22:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

hi, I noticed you were on the deletion logs for this page.. it seems to be salted. I'm not sure if you know but there has been some local coverage in the LA Weekly about this "trend", and it appears there is an interest in this article to exist. Can you restore the article so sources can be added and it can be brought up to standards? thanks riffic (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like User:King of Hearts took care of it. Glad we can have an actual article now rather than a pile of childish nonsense there! DMacks (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi DMacks,

I wanted to see if I could discuss with you not having our page removed. I was trying to introduce my new sports apparel company and I was removed for advertising. Other companies are on here as well, so I was wondering why I am being removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stitches Sportswear LLC (talk • contribs) 06:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for advertising (

WP:USERPAGE guidelines. (sorry for all the jargon/acronyms there...you can follow the links to see what they mean). DMacks (talk

) 06:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

So for example, Under Armour could have a page but we cant?? Because we make 500,000 a year and they make millions? I am confused. Other companies talk about their background and who they market and work with. What rules do I have to follow to be able to have my company on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stitches Sportswear LLC (talk • contribs) 06:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, an article about a company needs to explain something about how the company is

this guideline.DMacks (talk

) 07:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyway you can take the page you deleted and look through it and help me edit the material in it so we can keep it on Wikipedia. I am new to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stitches Sportswear LLC (talk • contribs) 07:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about your company, so I'll again again refer you to

conflict of interest makes it hard to write a viable, objective article that doesn't come across sounding like an advertisement. DMacks (talk

) 07:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A NASCAR website mentioned us as a sponsor as well as local radio stations in the southern GA area for our donations to boys and girls clubs throughout the country. These may not be the sources Wikipedia is looking for but I can assure you our company works with several professional athletes, we just dont have people writting about us, which is fine. Our company is on the rise and Skechers filed a suit against us for having our logos conflict with their marketing abilities. I guess we can try back when someone cares to write about us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stitches Sportswear LLC (talk • contribs) 07:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have some reliable source (a URL, bibliographic info for a newspaper mention, etc.) about those types of things, that's enough to get going--at that point I would let it stay pending a wider discussion among editors. The real issue is that wikipedia is explicitly only for things that have already been reported elsewhere, so things need to be sourced back to someone else's writings. It's really (some would say discouragingly:( difficult for new companies to get their article started. I'm going off-line now, will be back tomorrow, can discuss more if you like. DMacks (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I must disagree with your comment -- the reason as to why you felt it necessary to undo my comment on the

This is a purely revisionist mind-set. The fact that "some element has to be it" is the point. It is not a comment made with regards to any particularly significance of bismuth as an element, but the fact that there is a "point of stability" which is "passed" between 83<Z<84. This is significant, and not a very commonly known fact about the periodic table of elements. It is our responsibility, as members of the scientific community, to convey simple facts like this to the general public. It is not sufficient to say that there is some point at which stability is no longer possible. We must then explain that point, and even then, a person may simply shrug his shoulders and move on not knowing that this point is passed between 83 and 84. I am content to post a "pedestrian" sign at bismuth that says "here is the end of the road for stable, electrically neutral, elements". Many periodic tables also include this fact by noting that two elements of atomic number lower than 83 are not stable, and the entire string of elements above 83 are shown to be instable. Such periodic tables usually indicate this with some symbol that is either filled or unfilled. If authors and periodic table printers feel it is "interesting"-enough to include for the public to see, I see no justification to have such a fact removed from the public eye just because someone finds it uninteresting.

The comment I wrote may not be of interest to you, but to remove it because you do not find it interesting is purely self-serving and at worst a bad revisionist approach to Wikipedia. This fact about the elements is not very well-known, particularly to undergraduates of any scientific field (particularly Chemistry. It is in fact, a worthy landmark on the periodic table just as much the violation of Hund's rule at Z=24 and Z=29 for chromium and copper respectively (half-filled, low-lying s-shells) -- among other examples. The whole concept of orbitals (1s, 2s, 2p, 3s...etc) may be inherently wrong, and these are basic, fundamental facts about the elements -- which you apparently find uninteresting? How can we, as a scientific community, fail to report a fact to the public (no matter how obscure)... or as J.J. Thomson noted:

"No fact discovered about the atom can be trivial, nor fail to accelerate the progress of physical science, for the greater part of natural philosophy is the outcome of the structure and mechanism of the atom."

I was quite pleased to discover this fact on my own a few years ago!!!! First, in my doctoral research on electrostatics. Then, confirmed in a textbook.

TJ LaFave 02:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjlafave (talk • contribs)

"It is interesting" is a

WP:WEASEL phrase, even worse than my claim that it isn't interesting because there's no explanation of this subjective claim. The text you wrote included two elements beyond Bi, so "Bi is the highest something" isn't even true on its face, so you need a specific explanation why Bi is special (and those are truly exceptions to some rule). The idea of an island of stability really is important, but the idea of "Bi is significant because it's highest in that region" only makes sense if you clearly define why the region itself is clearly defined, etc. I think the important and interesting thing actually is the island--there's lots of important science involving it. We actually have a whole article devoted to the island of stability. But the elements that happen to delineate it are interesting in relation to the island, not in relation to the current layout of the periodic table we use (it's not part of the PT history, electronic rationale, periodic trends, etc.) so it's fairly off-topic for the PT article. DMacks (talk

) 03:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect you were a bit irked by the phrasing I happened to use. I admit, I hadn't reviewed my comment before posting a reply to your revision here (I didn't realize that I had written "interesting" in the comment -- nor that is a "weasel" phrase. Perhaps it because I started using Wikipedia a few days ago.) If it is a weasel phrase, it would have been more useful to note so, rather than remove the statement entirely and state that it's "not that interesting". I certainly must, however, disagree that a weasel phrase is a greater offense than having a statement removed by a user (moreso, an administrator) who chooses to characterize the statement as not being interesting. Such revisionist thinking is part of why nearly every scientist today believes (if not insists or demands) that a quantum mechanical interpretation of all things small is essentially demanded by Nature. This selective history is not science. I had wanted to cite the island of stability -- but much moreso the sea of instability. However, on the island of stability page is a comment about the "sea of severe instability" -- such a rare phrase (google yields only 6 results when quoted exactly, one being wikipedia, and at least three others being posts by users on yahoo). This part of the sea of instability, I think, holds many more clues as to the cause of instability beginning with Z=84 than the island of stability. In fact, in my work, one finds similar features of the sea of severe instability in the vicinity of 43 and 61. These features are not obvious in other work. Furthermore, these landmarks at 43, 61 and 83 are part of the periodicity of Nature. This is why I may have inadvertently used the word "interesting" in my posted text -- to draw attention to the fact that there are indeed unstable elements.

I also must beg to differ in that the post was not "fairly off-topic for the PT article" as you claim. Many (if not all) periodic tables that list the atomic mass of each element cite the mass of the most stable isotope of unstable elements instead, printing the mass value in parentheses. See [4] as an example. Other periodic tables show the atomic numbers of unstable elements with open-face text. Still others indicate this fact with an asterisk or other symbol. Pointing out this fact, at face value, begs a reader's question, "Why?" "Why are these elements unstable?" "Why is it that when you put just so many protons in the nucleus of an atom it becomes unstable?"

Simply removing a pertinent comment for personal pedantic reasons is bad science. --TJ LaFave 13:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjlafave (talk • contribs)

Content looks better now. I assume you realize how important it is to be objective in science...indeed "interesting" is what tipped me off (as well as citing such an idea to an entire undergrad physics text, if I recall Halliday correctly). Careful with presuming my perspective ("revisionist"). Again I say that WP is huge and we have enough pages to cover each aspect of a topic...if it's not within the scope of the PT as currently constructed (i.e., periodicity/trends or the origins of the current layout), there's probably some other page where the content belongs instead. Science always raises questions, but the beauty of an encyclopedia (and especially a highly-interlinked one such as WP) is that you can jump to or search for a secondary page about whatever one finds intersting or curious and learn specifically about it. We don't need to have a single page about all aspects of everything related to a major topic. If a secondary page is missing something or is incomplete, would be great to get it improved so that readers specifically interested in the island of stability can learn about it properly and more completely. DMacks (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You done with

Well, the bug is still present, but it's been demonstrated well enough I guess. I re-direct-redirected. DMacks (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on

You're welcome! DMacks (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi DMacks. There might be some of your images that would benefit from being transferred to Commons. --Leyo 06:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, DMacks. You have new messages at A More Perfect Onion's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Humorous reply provided A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't the article go under some sort of

There is an ongoing problem with throw-away registered accounts. That means semi-protection doesn't block it and 0RR or other zero-tolerance/blocking of accounts won't stamp out the problem either. It's based on Twitter rumor or other silliness, so likely blow over in a few days or so, and we can knock down the protection again. But at this time, evidence is that nothing less than full-prot would stop this wave of BLP vandalism. DMacks (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my edit, I totally forgot that we can move pages and there is no need to create a whole new page.   ■ MMXX^talk  06:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes, Rich (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No evidence of that action per article history. DMacks (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with

Yeah, that was a weird one! DMacks (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And I have initiated a sockpuppetry case. Just thought I'd let you know, in case you're interested. — Σxplicit 03:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I nuked a bunch more of her crap. If another sock appears, CU can bring down some heavier hammers. DMacks (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again. — Σxplicit 04:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ayup, and kill't. Thanks again for staying on top of this...guess we'll see what happens in a month:/ DMacks (talk) 06:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Might want to keep an eye on HINSTAMAN (talk · contribs). Although checkuser didn't bring it up and the account has been editing since June, editing patterns are a bit like Lil Lez. I'm not fully convinced it's Lil Lez though; only time will tell. — Σxplicit 04:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's only a half-

WP:DUCK. Got a CU link? DMacks (talk

) 07:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The last sock case above verified that YesNoJoe was Lil Lez, but brought up no other accounts even though HINSTAMAN has been around before then. I'm still not entirely sure this new one is Lil Lez... but the uncanny similarities leave me uncomfortable. I wondering if you could take a look at File:T.I. - Dead and Gone.jpg and check to see if 808-Thug (talk · contribs) left the same type of content on the file that HINSTAMAN has done. If they are, I'd be more convinced that this is Lil Lez; otherwise, back to square one. — Σxplicit 00:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

800-Thug's edits to that file are not Windows pathnames (HINSTAMAN's edits). Oh well. DMacks (talk) 05:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Gah, back to square one it is. — Σxplicit 05:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)