User talk:Dsol

Archive: 1 2

Unless you request otherwise, I will respond here.

Hi Dsol... I've re-added the factual inaccuracies section of this article, but changed the wording to ensure there is no original research. If there is still an issue, please let me know. Regards, wisefroggy —Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hi DSol, Im amazed at the amount of information that is covered on this paper. its nothing but propaganda about how good they were. I look at other wiki newspaper briefings, I mean really. The entire page should be edited, and leave the basics. way too much information which is irrelevant. Shokorus (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that assessment. It's true the article reads somewhat strangely as there has been a lot of edit warring there in the past. But I don't see any reason to remove info. Basically the article describes what the paper was and repeats what was in the major secondary sources, like Vanity fair and rolling stone. dsol (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You changed a part of this article to note that Denk was also involved in the invention of the 2-photon microscope. I'll agree that as it was written, Denk (and also Strickler) was overlooked. But on the other hand, this article is about 3D optical data storage, not about the 2-photon microscope. Webb was mentioned because of his research in the latter. I didn't like your text because it made it look like Denk was more important to the article subject than Webb. I hope you'll think my compromise version is acceptable. If not, then go ahead and try something else. • TheBendster (talk) 21 February 2009, 12:21 (UTC)

I find it strange that 2P microscopy is mentioned several times on the page but Denk is not mentioned at all, but I'm willing to defer to your version anyway. dsol (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Dsol, I just reread my response to you on the [Rick Santelli] page and realized I felt compelled to point out that the now deleted playboy.com blog posting was used to perform a hatchet job/personal smear on the character of Rick Santelli over and above its now rather questionable veracity regarding the spontaneity of Santelli's rant. No matter what one feels about Mr Santelli's politics or knowledge of economic theory, the sort of highly personal attack that attempts to impugn someone's character by vaguely associating them with particular corporations or political groups in the absence of any real evidence should simply not be tolerated in Wikipedia. Respectfully, -- Rydra Wong (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are mostly on the same page....I have responded at the Rick Santelli talk page. dsol (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Venom sac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 03:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI even tho it was 3 years ago, please do not use wikipedia to post your personal opinion on a topic, thank you. 69.165.136.164 (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dsol! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 0 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Thierry Marignac - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Beast cover86.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Exile136.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use 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 on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an open WP:SPI case looking at sockpuppet editing primarily on the Johann Hari/ Talk page. As you edited the Johann Hari/Talk page between 2004 and 2011, your input is welcomed. Yonmei (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2011 (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) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dsol. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]