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, 64: 14 days

Erich Clar page

I want to include a synthetic reaction that is known as Clar's reaction. It is of a certain class of cyclic ketones that condense with themselves when heated to 400 C in a mixture of zinc dust and zinc chloride.

I will add references and a description of what it is used for in synthesizing new polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Breyers disruptive editing

Could you please have a look at Breyers and the last three topics on the talk page? A user - Axad12 - is opposing simple sourced edits to a start-class article that should be uncontroversial and easy to describe.

This user and three others refused collaboration or constructive suggestions on a recent DRN. The user claims consensus is established on the talk page to say that a 2013 Breyers dessert product contained "antifreeze", a comment mentioned only in an unscientific book on "banishing belly fat".

Admins Cullen328 and BD2412 previously provided comments indicating use of the antifreeze term was undue. Otherwise, I have made only straightforward, sourced edits that Axad12 immediately reverts.

Thanks for your time. Zefr (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per the recent talk page discussion, 6 users oppose the edits that this user has been attempting to make. However, the user keeps opening new threads apparently in the hope that none of the opposing voices will continue to object.

The idea that I have been disruptive here is really quite mistaken. All I have done is reverted edits which are contrary to obvious talk page consensus.

The story here goes back to early November, when the user above implemented a COI edit request that had previously been declined. They were then reverted and ever since then they have bludgeoned the talk page. Axad12 (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look over the next day or two... DMacks (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Came here for your brief assessment of the food science, ingredient safety, and common sense for describing a brand objectively, a simple task for which the two users below have repeatedly ignored requests to collaborate. Apologies for the verbose behavior that followed. RfC underway. Zefr (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm particularly concerned with Zefr's attitude towards other editors, including myself, like WP:ASPERSION using words like "disparaging Breyers", "slander" and such that is brodering WP:NLT and in general, failure to assume good faith. Graywalls (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Apologies for the length of this post, but the content is relevant to the discussion here.)

Just a note to say that I'd suggest that any analysis of the events here should start at the COI edit request thread from back in August where the disputed material (on Propylene Glycol) was declined to be removed, here [1].

There are then a series of short threads where the paid COI user calls upon Zefr to implement changes to the article. The background to those short threads is this attempt [2] by the COI user to pick up a project member more amenable to implementing his agenda than had been encountered by relying on a random user working out of the COI edit request queue. Having failed to locate such a project member the paid COI editor then makes a direct approach to Zefr (a member of the relevant project) here [3] at Zefr's talk page. Then, having found the user amenable, further direct approaches at the user's talk page are made here [4] and here [5] (these are on top of the repeated pinging of the user in the relevant COI edit requests).

Then we have the resubmission of the request to remove the disputed material in a COI edit request thread here [6] and the exactly simultaneous request for Zefr to deal with the COI edit request in this direct approach at the user's talk page, here [7].

I'd suggest that the series of events outlined here is a clear example of paid editing black arts, whereby a friendly project member is deliberately cultivated and canvassed by the paid COI editor with the clear intention of later reintroducing a contentious and previously declined request in such a way that their cultivated account will implement it.

About an hour after the contentious edit request was implemented by Zefr a new thread was started by Graywalls, here [8] disputing the legitimacy of the removal of the Propylene Glycol-related material. This then sets off the many subsequent threads where the material is discussed at great length across the rest of the talk page material.

I'd thus suggest that simply looking at the last three topics on the talk page, as suggested by Zefr above, would not come close to giving a full understanding of the events here. Axad12 (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation of "disparaging" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Breyers#c-Zefr-20241113205400-Graywalls-20241113203800

This may have instigated a comment abstractly hinted taking actions through outside means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Breyers#c-Dustfreeworld-20241118165800-Axad12-20241118062200

All on all, phrasing like "disparaging" and Zefr's subsequent aspersion casting of "slander" is getting awfully close to AGF and no legal threat territory, as happened https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Breyers#c-Zefr-20241129044200-Graywalls-20241129042900 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Breyers#c-Zefr-20241129035300-Graywalls-20241129033700 Graywalls (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A further example [9] of the concept of slander being invoked (twice) by Zefr, this time from the DRN thread.

While I don’t see these mentions (and those above) as specific legal threats, the purpose of continually alleging slander is obviously an attempt to derail reasonable discussion and to have a generally chilling effect. This is essentially the same approach that Zefr has taken in repeatedly alleging that I have committed multiple policy breaches by simply reverting edits which are contrary to talk page consensus.

As far as I can see it is all just bully boy tactics, plain and simple. Axad12 (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And there's the general WP:OWN behaviors by Zefr like having presented expectations to others to present changes to them before editing and stating Statements of facts supported by reliable sources do not need talk page consensus. to justify their own changes against consensus in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Breyers#c-Zefr-20241123214600-Graywalls-20241120204600 which they had to be corrected by Aoidh and PhilKnight. There's general consensus over a handful of editors to have some mention of propylene glycol, which is a sourced information. I feel Zefr is trying to single handedly suppress it. Graywalls (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way @Zefr:, the Cullen and BD being admins don't lend additional weight to content related disagreement. The term "antifreeze" is currently not in the article. Graywalls (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Ellery

I don't know where "Andem" comes from, but William Ellery Sr. was a prominent RI politician who died in 1764.

And given where Andem St is in Providence, there's no way there was a street there in 1776, when Samuel Ward died. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Innnnnteresting, thanks! I am not knowledgeable about the history of that area of Providence. Good removal of uncited and now seemingly dubious. DMacks (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither am I terribly knowledgeable about Providence history, but I did grow up there. :) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sex, Love, Misery: New New York

The article Sex, Love, Misery: New New York has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable, see Talk page

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

I just remove broken link and add useful link

Hello, My name is javeriyashaik. I just changed The unused broken link has been replaced with a Informative link for the user good experience. Have there been any mistakes on my part? JaveriyaShaik (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support fixing broken links, in keeping with the WP:404 guideline. A top-level/main-page of a whole website does not seem like a stable reference to support the speciifc content. And it does not seem like the correct title. Instead, this is a typical type of edit that SEO spammers make. DMacks (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out, DMacks. I sincerely apologize for repeating the same mistake despite your earlier feedback. This oversight was unintentional, and I deeply regret not adhering to the WP:404 guideline as carefully as I should have.

I value the importance of maintaining high standards on Wikipedia and recognize how my actions may have caused inconvenience. I’ll take extra care moving forward to ensure all references are precise, stable, and directly support the content they cite.

Thank you for your patience and for helping me learn from this experience. JaveriyaShaik (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalizing Zoo Articles and More with LTA IPs!

DMacks, stop the reverting with long-term abuse right now with Clumsy. I am going to be real mad if all the new species are going to be removed along with sentences.

You have to remember this line.

No more long term abuse allowed.

GregoryPeacock1213 (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Greetings DMacks, and a Happy New Year. I am writing to alert you to a puppet of the already blocked user Alon9393, exactly this account alerted by this noun, who has created an article and is basing his comment edits on deletion requests. At the moment he only exists in the English edition, but he may make the jump to other editions at any time. Pichu VI (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was handled via Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alon9393. I'm not able to access Twitter sites, so I'm not sure what that link would have contained. DMacks (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the change of Hans Bergel

Why did you remove Hans Bergel's works, which were properly cited? While I understand that some parts of the wiki were not cited correctly, the notable works of the Schriftsteller des Jahrhunderts ("Author of the Century" in English) were accurately referenced.

Hans Bergel published over 1,600 literary pieces in the German language for Germany, with the most famous ones included in the article. His work Fürst und Lautenschläger even won the prestigious Buch des Millenniums ("Book of the Millennium") award, which is given once every decade.

Now, all of his contributions are gone. Kavya79 (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link: Hans Bergel (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

As I stated in my edit-summary, there was no clear basis for choosing these particular ones, given how many he wrote. How were these decided as "the most famous ones"? It can't be just what we (as editors) think. For example, winning an award is a good reason. Feel free to add that one. It would be a good sentence in the article itself, noting its award (with cite for it). DMacks (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

Sennecaster

CheckUser changes

Worm That Turned

Ferret

Oversight changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Following an RFC, Wikipedia:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.

Technical news

The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.

Miscellaneous

A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]