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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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, 63Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Hello DMacks,,Waterman here again:) im sorry this has somewhat landed in your lap but what position am i supposed to take when my original unblock request as Redbranch1984 was closed with no chance of review and then a lock was put on my user page as waterman0201 so i cant even request an unblock on my own page,and then the Administrator who blocked me accused me of attacking some other user, if you look at the history of User NeilN's contributions you will see that him and others undone all my messages to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Volunteers ,and then deleted the history of them even making the undo's,,my IP address at that time was 36.37.134.95 ,,he made the undo's starting from 14:14, 20 August 2013,this is the IP i was accused of attacking another random user on by the Administrator who blocked my User:Waterman0201 account,if you check its history you will see i done no such thing,,,and the only response i got from an email to the arbitrary committee was an IP block also,,,what kind of stand am i supposed to take here,,,,,,Please don't let me down on this one,,ill buy you a pint some day:)

I put a link on the photo and it says creative commons 3.0 so it wasnt a fail — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardleonardy (talk • contribs) 16:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor tagged the image disputing the license, so I looked more closely at the source. site says CC3.0 but also has specific icons restricting as NC and ND[1]. Those restrictions make it not completely free (WP requires those two parts of the licensing). DMacks (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you lower protection settings of Lester Coleman to "pending changes"? I saw just infrequent editing before and after protection. --George Ho (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was long-term problem with serious WP:BLP there. Even once protected, they continued via talk-page. I don't see evidence that there is an intent by non-autoconfirmed editors to make viable changes (quite the contrary). Semi seems to me a better balance. DMacks (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon, The webpage http://wildfarmkids.com/take-action/ you deleted/edited has been used by parents, mentor, coaches, schools, doctor offices to show that this activity is in fact real. I believe you know nothing on this subject. We were encouraged to add it to Wiki to help parents and caregivers relate to this. There is a blog connected to it but the information has all been researched and is worthy of being included under the heading it was placed. WSEngle (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@WSEngle: Wikipedia documents things that are reported in the mainstream media. However good your cause, Wikipedia articles do not link to good causes willy nilly. Show that your source has had discussion in reliable sources and re-addition of the link may be reconsidered.

DMacks has no need to know anything about the article to know that the link was not appropriate as it stood. Please be substantially less accusative ion the way you address him. Fiddle Faddle 18:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.thesimpsonian.com/news/students-play-deadly-game/article_a72cdde2-4c55-11e1-ad29-0019bb30f31a.htmlhttp://www.thesimpsonian.com/opinion/brother-s-death-had-warning-signs/article_30cdc9da-4c60-11e1-9102-0019bb30f31a.html http://vimeo.com/40964307 http://wildfarmkids.com/2013/04/17/2012-iron-journalist-2/ no small feet to win this at SIMPSON COLLEGE.

The information on the CDC is outdated and makes the problem seem as if it were resolved. Their numbers are so off that it is insulting.

WSEngle (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the information has been "researched", then those underlying sources might be valid to include (assuming they meet reliability standards if they cover ground not already covered in the article. A college newspaper obviously can report on events reliably, but I don't see how it supports this specific website being notable. You'll need a very strong source to support a claim that the CDC is wrong. Note that the only reason I added the CDC at all was as a better reference for "how to talk to your kids about it", which is the only thing that the disputed site sounds like it has beyond what is already extensively in the wikipedia article. WP:EL instructs us not to include extlinks that merely duplicate already-existing (or easily includeable) article content. DMacks (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The CDC is out dated and the numbers that are used daily by news and public to "site" of how many kids have died is outdated. This is such a controversial death that as everyone tip toes around it, only the children that come forward to say it is a real problem and addictive "chasing the high" and never thinking death is possible. I hope you see our frustration as most the parents feel that sadly it will never get the recognition as being real until a celebrity is the grieving parent and they will go to all the search engines and search, and they will find out dated information. just as the links to CDC and Wiki provide. Having the take action link is a resource for parents. I find parents don't know how to ask, what to look for, how to start a conversation. Show compassion and see it was added as a lay way of bringing the conversation to the world. The site has been viewed in over 45 countries world wide. This is global. As far as random blogs or websites, this one has a constant feed to keep parents engaged in the ripple effect of education by sharing the new knowledge. While word of mouth has saved lives, having a link on Wiki is a title wave not a ripple. Please read the link, I do not want to battle you over this, it just makes me frustrated, The blog is a way that as it is shared to social media, NEW eyes see the information. I hope you have learned more about this deadly activity, Blessings WSEngle (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@WSEngle: You need to understand the difference between a soapbox, which Wikipedia is not and an encyclopaedia, which WIkipedia is. Wikipedia is entirely uninterested in your good cause unless you can show that it is notable. Wikipedia does not have compassion. If you find that to be a problem then seek to change WIkipedia's policies. Please use WP:VP or a similar platform to seek to do that. Fiddle Faddle 22:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Timtrent says, the goal is laudable and the underlying situation unfortunate at a personal and societal level, but none of that meets our standards for encyclopedia content. You have again repeated your claim, with zero evidence provided that published material from reliable sources is incorrect. Again, wikipedia is founded on the policy of verifiability, and we pretty much have to trust major research/medical organizations such as CDC unless there is "at least as good" a source to dispute it. DMacks (talk) 07:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Would you be able to make a usable stub of this article? I tried going through the history and there's really nothing salvageable on the copyright end, but I'd rather not have a redlink if I could help it. Wizardman 04:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could strip it down to the chemistry, but I don't know enough about the biochemistry/biology of it to be able to summarize or give a key two-sentence overview of its significance. Maybe that's really for the best...it's a chemical that is notable for it being a folk remedy and that has some scientific basis for biological activity, and that's that (not details about what any of that is, leave it to someone who understands and has time to read and write clearly). DMacks (talk) 07:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DMacks, this file has not been deleted yet and it has been more than seven days. 12.168.128.77 (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I know we've had our quarrels over structures but I do respect your opinion on structures and as part of this I felt like asking your opinion on this structure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:(Sodium_Nitroprusside)2DACS.svg) for sodium nitroprusside as there's been some argument over its accuracy when compared to this structure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sodium-nitroprusside-2D.png). Thanks Fuse809 (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know this particular chemical very well, but the two images are actually "different" in several factual ways. What is the geometry supposed to be? The 6 bonds coming off the iron in File:(Sodium Nitroprusside)2DACS.svg point in an extremely distorted direction, whereas File:Sodium-nitroprusside-2D.png is clean octahedral molecular geometry. The 2DACS.svg has the metal nitrosyl complex bent, whereas the 2D.png is linear. DMacks (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]