User talk:Dougmac7

Hello, Dougmac7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Pettao, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Pontificalibus (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pettao

The article Pettao has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The word PETTAO is not a notable term. The only use of this word in this context is by pettao.com and as such this article seems to be a thinly disguised promo.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pontificalibus (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User pages vs User Talk Pages

In regards to this edit [1], if you're trying to discuss matters with an editor, please don't leave comments on their User page. Discussions should go on the talk page, so your commenst should go here.

Please note I'm not making any comment on the validity of your warnings or the ongoing dicussion, I'm only letting you know the best way to communicate. Good luck.

Also, please do not change other editor's user pages, as you did here [2] in removing an award from that user's page. Each editor has their own page, and they can put whatever they'd like on that page (within reason) as per WP:USER. Dayewalker (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

In the past, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has helped me with constructive advice. He's a good spam hunter. And he caught some things I did which were against the rules (I made a mistake about using wishy-washy sources on the bio of an important heavily-trafficked article; he caught it, and I undid my mistake.) He's been on Wikipedia for a while so he knows the rules, generally. I don't understand your dispute with him. In the future, please don't edit peoples' talk pages -- you can add to them by adding sections at the bottom. And please remember to sign your talk pages (you can click on the scribble icon next to the black "W" with a red line diagonally through it; or, add four ~ (tildes). If you need my help, please ask, although I'm still somewhat of a nooB and learning the ropes. I've learned how to edit offline, use templates for references; using references is a great way to help make your contributions stick. Also, make sure you understand the basic rules -- WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:VERIFY those are the biggies -- if you get those, you'll be fine.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And adding to the above, Dougmac7, you seem to be a bit new to this. It is not appropriate for you to be demanding credentials form other users. It is not appropriate for you to insist that other users discuss their edits before they make any changes. It is not appropriate for you to claim special status as a journalist who has been covering Amy Grant's career. In fact, you may have a conflict of interest (I don't know, just saying it seems possible) in which case you should not be particularly careful about how you edit the article if at all. Your complaint at ANI seems to be based much more on your own misunderstanding of accepted practice that any real problem with the editor you are complaining about.

It can take a while to get used to how wikipedia works if you are new to it; so don't take this too hard. My advice, seriously, is to avoiding telling other people what is proper or "mandatory" in the article, and start talking to other editors as equals. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there 140 sections of complaints against H. Wolfowitz? Check out his User page Discussion section. You two are in the vast minority. To Tomswulcer- your input is sound. I appreciate you responding. Please keep in mind the large number of editors who have complained about Wolfowitz and his erratic patterns on wikipedia. To Duae Quar- you are accusatory of me instead of dealing with the issue. I won't waste time dealing with you.Dougmac7 (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to give you some useful advice, in good faith. This is not intended to be accusatory, and it will help, truly, if you can take it as such. You will work better with wikipedia if you can do so according to standard guidelines. Wolfowitz is involved in keeping biographies consistent with wikipedia guidelines, which is useful and constructive work. He has been doing so for a long time. This happens to be an area where a lot of people want to do things which are inconsistent with the guidelines, unfortunately. That is why there are a lot of complaints; not because he is actually working improperly.

I will nor force my opinions on your further if you do not want them; but they are intended to help, not to accuse. There are several aspects of your engagement so far that are inevitably going to be a problem, and you can address that best by accepting that advice is given in good faith and taking it into account. Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts

Hi, you mentioned elsewhere that user:Relax777 is also you. We do have a number of rules about multiple accounts, mainly to prevent them being used to create an illusion of extra support on talkpages. If you intend to continue editing under more than one account I'd like to suggest you read WP:Multiple Accounts. If you do continue to use both accounts, your best option would probably be to decide which is your main account and tag the secondary accounts with {{User Alternate Acct | main account}} and the main account with {{User Alt Acct Master|second account}}. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily blocked for sock puppetry (maybe not)

Dougmac7, you cannot use multiple accounts at the same time to give false impressions of support or in tandem for disruptive purposes, from which I saw. You used both accounts to harass Hullaballoo Wolfowitz as well as give a false impression of support on Talk:Amy Grant. Do not do that again. While you are blocked, please read our policies on sock puppetry and article ownership (i.e. nobody owns articles or content here). Regards, MuZemike 05:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After having read the stuff at ANI more closely as well as the comment above, I have decided to unblock you in good faith that you won't do this again. MuZemike 06:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Pettao

I have nominated Pettao, 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/Pettao. 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. Pontificalibus (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Pet-Tao

A tag has been placed on Pet-Tao requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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), 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. ttonyb (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Pet-Tao Pet Foods

A tag has been placed on Pet-Tao Pet Foods, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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), 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. WuhWuzDat 16:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Tao

Hello Doug, you must be getting frustrated that your articles keep getting deleted. It looks like you put quite a bit of work into writing Pet-Tao. There were two reasons that I deleted Pet-Tao. Once was that it was promotional, with the text trying to make the product sound good. Second was that there seemed to be no claims of importance to justify its appearance in an encyclopedia, and verified by a web search. If you wish the page can be restored as User:Dougmac7/Pet-Tao, and you can work on resolving these issues. It also seems that there was some other similarly named articles that were speedily deleted too. The promotional text includes wording like "highest quality" "our mission" "strengthen the human-animal bond", "healthy, vibrant, long lives" "advocates" "proponent" "tenets and truths" "balance between" repeated and repeated. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue pursuing options about Pet-Tao. And other editors can as well. I appreciate you giving an objective answer and reasons regarding what has taken place. This situation has been frustrating. The other administrator (named Tan) and a few volunteers never objectively discussed this situation. They seem to have no accountability, which is unfortunate. Dougmac7 (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think that the deletion review should have run for the full time, as I did not even get to add my comments. However I would not expect that the review would have had any different outcome. What your next step could be is to work on something else (apart from pet food) for a few weeks to get the frustration out of your system. Much of the gnome work is uncontroversial, such as fixing spelling mistakes. When you are ready you can create a page in your user space with a non promotional article that includes several reliable references. Then check with your opposers if it is satisfactory. I have disagreed with Tan on a few occasions but I do not hold any kind of grudge against him. Mostly we are working in the same direction. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Harold Huber, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wellness pet food comment

You left a comment about the Wellness pet food article, so I thought you might want to take a look at it now. I'm pretty sure it no longer reads like an advert. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find out where 'Page view statistics' is

If anyone can help, please help!! I use wikipedia often, and I also help add content with references, etc. A feature I use all the time is 'page view statistics.' Where did it go? I somehow cannot find the 'page views' button. I found "watchers." I searched in Help and in Discussion, to no avail. Thank you!!!!!!!

File:Megan Gibson Nashville 2010.JPG

Did you forget to add a license tag for this image when uploading.?

Wikipedia takes copyrights seriously, so images need to have an appropriate license tag

You may wish to read Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/All and Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#For_image_creators which will assist you :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:B Johnson Retires 2010.JPG

Did you forget to add a license tag for this image when uploading.?

Wikipedia takes copyrights seriously, so images need to have an appropriate license tag

You may wish to read Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/All and Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#For_image_creators which will assist you :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:B_Johnson_Retires_2010.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:B_Johnson_Retires_2010.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Megan Gibson Nashville 2010.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Megan Gibson Nashville 2010.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Response requested

As I mentioned in the edit summary, and as another editor mentioned as well, that nickname does not apply to Nashville, but to the Middle Tennessee region as a whole. Including it in the Nashville article is not appropriate. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Gibson.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Gibson.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chavous analyst.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chavous analyst.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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]