User talk:DMCer

This user may have left Wikipedia. DMCer has not edited Wikipedia since 5 January 2022. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives

/Archive 1

I had made an addition to the Goldman Sachs page, which you reverted. It's not clear from the rest of article that Goldman was selling these mortgage products, all the while the firm was shorting them without informing its clientele. This is supported by numerous articles out there, New York magazine article being only one. Nyall (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting editors' help There is currently an oppened collaboration which aims in improving articles related to typefaces and font categorization. If you´re interested in this subject, please visit the collaboration page, add your self and see how you can help.

I hope you can be able to contribute in this section. Happy editings! - Woglinde 02 (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that mention of the Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co. should be in these two articles, it would be helpful if you would say so on the talk pages for the articles along with a comment about what you think the mention should say. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed here (for the Weiss article), here (for Robertson), and here.—DMCer™ 01:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpful input. Cla68 (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to “Marginal utility” replaced a general definition with one particular conception, and was therefore wrong. For example, as the article itself notes, the mainstream of economic theory does not define “utility” in terms of satisfaction; rather, “utility” is defined as a quantified proxy of preference. (Introductory undergraduate courses often punt to something like the original conception of the British marginalists, because it's easier to teach and because few economists are in fact really familiar with topic more generally. But “Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter.”) And marginal changes are not simply any potential or actual increases, but also decreases. —SlamDiego_←T 18:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You state utility is defined as a "quantified proxy of preference." Are you aware that nowhere online or in economic literature are those terms used? By the same measure, "proxy of preference" returns just two results. I've seen marginal utility explained countless different ways, usually more clearly than the lead sentence of the article — not because they were inaccurate definitions, but because the lead is simply not written very well. As you state that marginal changes include both potential increases and decreases in utility, why not just use my revision and build upon it to describe the decreases as well? At any rate, I would argue that what I wrote seems to be in line with mainstream economy theory. I'm copying this discussion the the article's talk page as well.—DMCer™ 21:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made my reply there. —SlamDiego_←T 22:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello... thanks for the note. With respect to the Letterman show, it is a creative work, and as such continues to exist as a body of work even if no new episodes are in production. We would only switch to past tense if all copies of said work were destroyed, in which case it would be considered to no longer exist. (In a similar vein, Citizen Kane "is" a film and War and Peace "is" a book, despite production having ceased on said works.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Tx.—DMCer™ 03:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you wrote: I couldn't help but notice from your edit summary and from you assertions on this users's talk page that you're assuming there sockpuppetry going on. You say in this edit summary that the user has, quote, "no history on Wikipedia beyond 2 reverts." Take a look at the user's contribution page, and you'll see that charge is not true. When you have a page that's been viewed 634 times so far in 2010, there are going to IP's that edit without an account. It doesn't automatically mean that there's sock puppetry going on because two people make edits that you disagree with. Feel free to get any checkuser you like to verify that the aforementioned IP isn't me. I don't waste time with such juvenile tactics as logging out to edit a page that I have no issue editing while logged in.—DMCer™ 22:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reply: My question on the talk page was "how do you establish whether a user is a sockpuppet?"

While I am sure you mean well, this comment does not answer the question. Skywriter (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the semi-threatening message you left on the IP user's talk page, to which I linked. As for your question about how to find what your looking for, I just told you on your page: they are called Checkusers. If you looked, you'd find this, and the active method here. Happy to help.—DMCer™ 23:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-threatening? The unregistered user sent me that idiotic warning, which I moved to that unregistered user's talk page. Thank you for your concern, misplaced though it is.Skywriter (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not referring to the warning; I was referring to the sockpuppetry talk on that page and others. I didn't say I oppose your wishes to have it checked.—DMCer™ 02:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that the page is protected from unregistered and new users. When my login dropped out, it then refused to recognise me as a bonafide user. When I hit the back button it just gave me a nasty message telling me that I could look but not touch! Well, I was so disgusted that I went and played Age of Empires II and used a large company of fearsome camel-riding Turks to slaughter a band of horrible axe-hurling Franks and the castle of shield-banging long-haired Celts in yellow striped pyjama pants and that made me feel much better. Amandajm (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, very nice. I wish I had such therapeutic methods at my disposal.—DMCer™ 06:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

child, you did not move my comments to the Goldman talk page; you deleted them.--67.84.35.181 (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I think you're assuming you're talking to a student. Second: The comments are on the page, calm down.—DMCer™ 08:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no, i'm assuming i'm dealing with someone young and am sympathetic and amused to an extent. earlier, i implied you're a Goldman lackey, but you probably missed that. joking. in any case, the time stamp on the Goldman talk page says 08:28. i didn't want to make an issue of this. i just wanted you fix the "error". let's not fight until next week, deal?--67.84.35.181 (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't plan on fighting at all, but deal. And no I didn't miss your insinuation, I just chose to focus on constructive things, as it's easier on my blood pressure. Right now, I have 119 tabs open, arranged in multiple browser windows, so the reason it took me a minute a while to submit the text to the GS talk page was because I hit preview, then proceeded to edit (and read) other articles. I came back to the page and hit submit eventually. Feel free to delete my talkback notifications on your talk page.—DMCer™ 09:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"it took me a minute" - more precisely, 119 minutes or a minute shy of two hours. a simple "i fixed the error" would have sufficed. i'm embarrassed to have this petty discussion, and I certainly don't want to embarrass you on your user page (my apologies), so you can delete this convo all together and leave it at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.35.181 (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are marking it for deletion again... unsure how to proceed. Have to say, this has motivated me not to contribute pics to Wiki. Rather put them somewhere else where the process is more clear. Thanks for your help on this, though! THDju (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If, at some point, you were in contact with one of the band members, what I would do is pursue this route. Essentially, this is asking them to release that one photo under the "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License." As soon as you forward the email to the OTRS address, you can place this permissions-pending template on the image page, and comment over at the pic's entry at FfD, basically mentioning permissions is pending, and the process should be paused (provided the email has been sent). If it somehow gets removed, and the band agrees via email to release the image under the Creative Commons license, an identical can always be re-uploaded. I'm not sure if Face will agree to it, but it's worth a shot. I know this seems like bureaucratic nonsense, and it's definitely frustrating, but it protects Wikipedia from legal battles, so it's ultimately necessary. I didn't notice the image had been tagged until you messaged me, so if you decide to contact the band and have them agree to release the image, let me know if you run into any snags and I'll do my best to assist. (Pasting this on your talk page, too). —DMCer™ 00:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! They did delete. Here is the contact info - Mark Megibow [email protected] - I think you can explain it better. I tried but Mark still has questions. THANK YOU! THDju (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful for you to discuss how you find the article meeting WP:BK. Otherwise, I think the notability concerns will just continue. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It had already been addressed by another editor(s), so I didn't want to get into it again if at all possible, but alas. I've responded on the talk page.—DMCer™ 22:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hopefully, that will be enough. --Ronz (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very, very much for your help!! (Starting with the explanation about the nowickis.)

I'm a little unsure what my next step is, now that you have done so much. Looking at the page, I thought that perhaps you had already done the move for me -- but when I go into wikipedia and search for "Arnold E. Resnicoff," the page doesn't show up.

Is there more that needs to be done now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floridarabbi (talk • contribs) 04:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one minor question: Can we change the page name from Arnold Resnicoff to Arnold E. Resnicoff

Floridarabbi (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry -- I think I answered my own question. Typing in "Arnold Resnicoff" did find the page, so I guess you did all the work for me, and I am very grateful. At this point, it actually makes more sense to leave the page title as is, rather than adding a middle initial, so that it is easier to find. Again, I am very grateful!! - Floridarabbi (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. Because there are no other articles similar in name, I left out the middle initial from the page name. I just created a redirect though, so Arnold E. Resnicoff will now link to Arnold Resnicoff.—DMCer™ 04:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again -- thanks very, very much!!! - Floridarabbi (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could I bother you just one more time? I created a page called Rabbi Resnicoff, to link to this page, but now realize that was a mistake -- because there are other rabbis in America with this name who might one day have pages. Therefore, keeping the page Arnold Resnicoff that you were kind enough to help me create, could you delete the page named "Rabbi Resnicoff." Again, I thank you for your help as I learn my way around Wikipedia! Floridarabbi (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it for speedy deletion, under the author request criteria, specifically. It should be deleted shortly.—DMCer™ 21:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, per the above. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.—DMCer™ 21:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- to both of you!! Floridarabbi (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you removed it from this page, but are you still wondering about the Hebrew, or did you figure it out? I'm assuming Arnold is "ארנולד", but I can't find a translation for Resnicoff. I can type in Hebrew on my computer, but if you can't, and you know how it's spelled, I would use the Hebrew alphabet article, and copy/paste the appropriate Hebrew characters into the article. We would leave out the "Rabbi" title for this part; for example:

Arnold Resnicoff (Hebrew: ... ארנולד; born 1946) is an American rabbi...

—DMCer™ 00:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! I removed the note because I figured out how to do it -- but it wasn't for the Arnold Resnicoff page, it was for the Mnachem Risikoff page (his grandfather). He used a strange pen name and I wanted to include it. It worked! Many thanks -- as always!! Floridarabbi (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning! I made an error entering a name on a photo in wikipedia commons that is used in the article for Mnachem Risikoff. The title of the photo file is Menachem_Risikoff_1909.jpg, but it should be Mnachem_Risikoff_1909.jpg. I am not sure how to change the title of the photo file itself. Could you tell me how to do that? Floridarabbi (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realise that there wasn't a novel as a part of the comics series. I don't know how I ended up redirecting it to itself, but as it's an implausible redirect, I've now deleted it. Thanks for calling my attention. Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to let you know — Waterloomatarw's numbers are plainly in error; compare the versions of the articles immediately before his edits to the original Rambot numbers that are taken directly from the Census data, and you'll see that his changes took correct numbers to incorrect ones. Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to revert and use Template:Uw-unsourced1, and should have, but was being a bit too tolerant (thought he might have seen sources newer than 2000). Thanks for the note.—DMCer™ 07:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Brian Moynihan BofA.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Sandstein  17:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded a free verison and replaced article image.—DMCer™ 21:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following a series of attacks against financial institutions and executives, particularly Goldman Sacks-related, from an undisclosed source based in the UK who has been trying to discredit them; and noticed you edited the Cheyne Capital Management article and just wanted to make a couple of points on this. Firstly, it seems that one of the references (No.5) points to a broken link: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article2347567.ece=home Secondly, there is not content in Wikipedia which reflects references 2, 3, 4 and 5 (broken). Finally, I am not suggesting there were not economic dislocations in 2007, which affected fund managers worldwide -Cheyne Capital amongst them; but on the contrary, any Wikipedia references should keep a relatively neutral point of view. I hope you appreciate the above reasons, and if you want me to develop in order to improve the article content, I will be more than happy to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.42.115 (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was an investigation, of sorts, here, and people are keeping tabs on the problem editor/articles. As for Cheyne, I've removed one of the sources that doesn't really mention anything relevant other than the name, and another deadlink, for which I wasn't able to find an archive. Since the statement is non-confrontational and was supported by other sources, these removals aren't a big deal. I should mention that I did add a couple sentences on the Queen's Walk fund, in what I believe is a balanced tone. Let me know if you have any questions.—DMCer™ 00:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for looking into this, I will carry out some further search on the Queen’s Walk fund and will get back to you, but in any case, the paragraph you added sounds balanced in tone. Also, I have added some facts about Cheyne Capital in the discussion tab of the article, which refers to they belonging to the relatively new regulatory standards for Hedge funds, HFSB, set up in 2008, and to the Alternative Investment Management Association, AIMA. I hope you consider adding these to the article in order to improve it with more facts and citations. 94.173.42.115 (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had some time, so I've added them with sources. Just so you know, if you create an account, you can edit semi-protected articles also.—DMCer™ 20:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering whether you could possibly intervene in yet another edit warring on the Cheyne Capital Management article; and also remove the malicious information on the Marie Douglas entry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.42.115 (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have passed the article to GA, good work and congratulations. H1nkles (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Your suggestions truly helped me a lot. Best.—DMCer™ 03:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idiotic edit you made to the article on the Goldman Sachs Tower makes me think that you have missed education. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.171.194 (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LEAD. I missed education? Where'd it go?! Glad to see you're also capable of constructive edits. Cheers.—DMCer™ 19:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help (again). I am still relatively new, but based on the article on Mnachem Risikoff I created, I added comments to two other pages: Agunah, and Holocaust Theology. The additions included well-researched references and sources. Almost immediately, someone deleted the entire addition I had made to the page, Agunah. I have just tried to reinstate it, labeling the deletion as vandalism. Could you look at that page and see what you think? Floridarabbi (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at somewhat of a loss here, as I'm not familiar enough with the subject to know whether or not what the user labels as "undue" is in fact so, though I agree with the other user's sentiment that something should have been included along the lines of what you added. At any rate I'm glad to see the discussion over at the Agunah talk page was fruitful, and perhaps more importantly, cool-headed — an increasingly rare virtue on WP. (I'm a little late here, as I have spotty Internet access thanks to my dead hard drive.) —DMCer™ 07:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You re-inserted the IW-Link to the german de:Finanzrisikocontrolling to Middle office. This is incorrect, as can be easily recognised by reading the german and the english article. Pls do not add again, because this causes unnecessary work, especially since bots pick it up and it has to be corrected again over several Wikis. Thanks and best regards --84.177.75.122 (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC) (i. e. de:Benutzer:Marinebanker)[reply]

Please clarify; I read the german, which is why I re-added the term. While it's not direct translation to "middle office," the description is the exact definition of the M.O., and it mentions the functions of the middle office support role, while comparing it to front and back office roles (listed in the "see also" section. In finance, the terms "controller" and "middle office" are easily interchangeable. I think the IW link belongs; care to discuss?—DMCer™ 18:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid confusion, I would like to point out, that I did some corrections in the second part of the german article [[1]]. However, neither version matches the englisch articles.

Whereas the english "middle office" is per description responsible for position keeping, the german "Finanzrisikocontrolling" is responsible for measurement of, monitoring and reporting of risk. The official position keeping is in germany ultimately the responsebility of something you would probably call "Accounting" or "Finance". Also, "Finanzrisikocontrolling" is not generally part of operations. Finally, at least in banks it does not work "in tandem" with Front office. In Germany, the rules for the seggragtion of duties and for functional separation seem to be much stricter than in the anglosaxon sphere.

I hope I express myself clearly. I have some difficulty to see where you find similarities of the german article to the english description. "Finanzrisikocontrolling" definitely has not a support role.

Regards --84.177.65.86 (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC) (same person as above)[reply]

Actually, the "measurement, monitoring, and reporting of risk," you equated "Finanzrisikocontrolling" to is equal to a middle office function in English/Western finance. While it may or may not be a direct translation, I think it should still be listed in the IW, since other language articles should be linked if they basically describe the same thing — irrespective of the country differences. Besides, front office and back office have matching IW's on their English pages, Finanzrisikocontrolling is the logical pair to Middle office, and right now there's a glaring gap. —DMCer™ 20:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that "measurement, monitoring, and reporting of risk" ist the responsibility of middle office, you should change the article Middle office accordingly. I only judge the Interwiki by what is currently written in the article. However, then it would be necessary to remove the french IW, and I would also doubt the russian one (not that I understand a single word).

At the moment, as I pointed out, it is not even "basically" the same thing.

Still, the functions given in the section Investment_banking#Middle_office] in Investment_banking do not match "Finanzrisikocontrolling". Only the entry under "Risk Management" comes close (which is again not really consistent with Risk management). The other functions are not part of "Finanzrisikocontrolling". Especially, if Treasury (or what is commonly understood by it) was under "Finanzrisikocontrolling", this would be a severe breach of established rules.

As for the "glaring gap", sometimes different countries have different concepts, so there is no analogon. In our case, the analogon would be something like "risk control". --84.177.65.86 (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC) (still de:Benutzer:Marinebanker)[reply]

I still think one of the above mentioned articles should be inter-wikied with Finanzrisikocontrolling, but I don't feel strongly enough to match your enthusiasm :-), so I'll leave it be.—DMCer™ 01:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enthusiasm? Well, whatever. Glad I could convince you you one way or another. Have fun in WP! Regards --84.177.69.90 (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC) (de:Benutzer:Marinebanker)[reply]

I saw in the Talk section of the SPLC that you had several articles that described the SPLC as a "liberal" or "progressive" organization. Do you mind sharing them with me? Thanks.--Drrll (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did have quite a bit, but that was some time ago and I've since gone through a hard drive failure or two, so I don't have them anymore. I didn't think the issue was going to go anywhere with the user that chimed in. I think a better direction to go in would be to cite sources that state the SPLC often pursues progressive causes—rather than labeling the organization one way or the other. The sources I had basically did that in more than a few cases, but you can probably find just as many using Google Archive Search.—DMCer™ 03:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll try looking there for sources that talk about their involvement in progressive causes.--Drrll (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned you in a discussion on Commons, here. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dear DMCer

thanks for working on that. but... what is the difference between what you added to the intro, and what was already written below? Decora (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For neutrality's sake, I wanted to summarize both sides of the argument in the intro, rather than laying out a case against the firm from the start. There were a couple inaccuracies / wrong citations, but I basically neutralized the start and added a couple sources. This is an area of finance that not a lot of people are knowledgeable about, so when an outlet like This American Life runs an episode about it (or when some bad TV reporting sensationalizes it), people sometimes come here to pass judgement without understanding the nuts and bolts of the issue. I like to make sure contentious financial subjects are still presented fairly.—DMCer™ 19:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh, thanks Decora (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hey i shortened the introduction and moved the whole thing to 'propublica article' section, please see what you think and if you think it was a good idea for me to move it. Decora (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good.—DMCer™ 18:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on that. Decora (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new article, Credit Derivatives Product Company. I'd be very grateful to know what you think. Thank you DMCer. Decora (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies on forgetting to provide an editory summarization. I was doing it in haste, using the information I had; and trying to complete it as fast as possible. I apologize for the inconvenience, and will recall to do that the next time I edit.

If you would like me to personally provide you with the reasons, that's not a problem.

Regards. JS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legaleagle12008 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:-) No worries! I didn't remember what this was about at first, since it was three months ago. I usually don't drop a note about those things, but if a new user is editing in heated articles (like the Congressman's), it's always good to leave an edit summary to let other users know what you're doing when they view an article's history. Just a few words or so, nothing long. Thanks for dropping by!—DMCer™ 21:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Criticism of The New York Times, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of The New York Times. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am an independent scholar in New York City. I saw your name in a wikipedia list of people who has access to the JSTOR collections, and is willing to share it with other scholars that have no access to it. So I was wondering if you would be willing to share your JSTOR access with me. Please let me know. I am at [email protected]—Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svelasco (talk • contribs) 22:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your page.—DMCer™ 03:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on New York Times controversies, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Don M. Wilson III, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don M. Wilson III. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JonRidinger (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost always plural. See mass plural and previous discussions ad nauseam. Rodhullandemu 05:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand your odd reference to "mass plural." That noun doesn't seem to exist. Care to clarify this "previous discussion" you speak of?—DMCer™ 07:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DMCer! I saw that you had previously worked to revise the Controversy section on the Dartmouth College wikipedia. I've been working to fix it too without success. If you have the time can you take a look at the discussion page and offer your opinion on what should be done? Thanks, NBruschi (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I'm late to the party; sorry about that. That said, I would have supported deletion, so I'm glad consensus thought the same. Thanks for your work on this!—DMCer™ 03:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back from Wiki Project Terrorism! I'm Katarighe, a Wikipedian member since 2009. I'm currently the successor of Sherurcij in September because, he has not edited Wikipedia using this account for a considerable amount of time since May 2010. We are trying to renovate the new WP page this fall 2011 and we look forward this month whats next. If you are interested, start the renovation with us and new awards on contributing terrorism are coming soon. The WP terrorism newsletter begins January 2012. See you on October for the updates on WP terrorism. I will send this message next month about the updates. Good Luck.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Terrorism at 22:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Thanks for uploading File:JPMorganPresentLogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed & agreed, thanks.

	James A. Banks Wkikpedia Entry
	This entry has been revised to address your concerns. Please remove the dispute tag. Thank you. Centerme (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been updating the article of the World Mission Society Church of God. I'm trying to keep it as neutral as possible. I'm having a problem with a member of the WMSCOG that keeps editing the changes. I don't want to keep reverting them because I don't want to be banned. Do you think you can check the article to see if he is actually right? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter1007 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I took a look and the removals are unwarranted, especially without discussion or rationale. I've warned the user again. If it continues, he/she should be reported to mods. —DMCer™ 20:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like! Good to see you on the case, DMCer. Wyote (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long time no see, Wyote!—DMCer™ 12:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore my last. Decided to go the 3O route.Superfly94 (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see that you created the entry that provides information about me (thanks). I just wanted to note that I am no longer the William H. Neukom Distinguished Professor or the Director of the Neukom Institute. I am currently simply a Professor of Computer Science at Dartmouth.

FaridDart (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Hany[reply]

I've updated the page. Thanks for the heads up.—DMCer™ 16:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Timoshenko Funeral.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DMCer,

I see you have an interest in financial based Wikipedia pages and I'm getting in touch as I was wondering if you could help me out with the Brevan Howard article? They're one of the largest hedge funds in the world, but their Wikipedia page has a number of factual inaccuracies in it. The talk page clearly identifies all of the inaccuracies, all backed up with sources. The user page of the previous editor who was helping out says he is taking a long break from Wiki, and the page hasn't attracted any new editors since October 2013.

It would be very much appreciated if you could lend a hand on this. --Jenny.barrett (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been cordially invited to discuss Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gymnastics#Major competitions and medal records for athletes following this and this discussions. Thanks for your quick and prompt response. --Osplace 04:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dartmouth College logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kleptocracy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malaysian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sloane ALIAS.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Jack Bristow ALIAS.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Michael Vaughn ALIAS.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Lee woods.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Lee woods.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, since you've been on Wikipedia a long time, I was surprised to see your use of investopedia.com added as a source to a White-shoe firm list when "There is no consensus on the reliability of Investopedia." Maybe it was considered a better source in prior years. Lindenfall (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback (where do the years ago...). In this case, I added the source primarily because the Investopedia article's byline establishes the article was peer-reviewed/fact-checekd by three professionals: It was written by a Ph.D. editor who also holds a Master's in economics, reviewed by a CPA/MA with a decade of finance experience, and fact-checked by a professional journalist with prior roles at national newspapers. I don't know if all Investopedia articles have three-levels of review, but it appears the publisher is signfifianctly more accountable than it may have been in the past. The WP:RSP summary mentions, Some editors recommend treating About.com articles as self-published sources, and only using articles published by established experts. In this case, I consider this article to be published by established experts. Investopedia also notes the article was reviewed by their Financial Review Board, which is comparised of subject matter experts. In light of the above, there has been some discussion about revisiting WP's source guideline on Investopedia, and many flagship papers cite it in a similar fashion, as noted on the preceding "discussion" link <<-). I'm by no means acting under the impression that the publisher is valid as a rule, but in this case, the article seemed to fit the general intent of WP's source policies. All that said, you're correct that a better source can be used, if only to avoid any other concerns. I've gone ahead and replaced one of the two instances of this citation with an alternative NYTimes source. — DMCer™ 06:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]