User talk:DMacks/Archive 39

Hi! Do you happen to know the origin/inventor of wedge-dash diagrams? According to Oxford dictionary of biochemistry and molecular biology (p. 428, 2nd ed, 2006, ISBN 9780198529170) Mills perspective representation (AKA representation or diagram) use wedge-dash (maybe wavy lines too?), and were invented to replace Haworth projections as you can't properly rotate the latter ones without kind of changing their chemical meaning. A perfect example of a Mills diagram is here. I also found IUPAC file, which mentions Mills diagram once on p 291. Keministi (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Our Skeletal formula article says:

"The modern wedges were popularised in the 1959 textbook Organic Chemistry by Donald J. Cram and George S. Hammond.^[1]"

That article doesn't refer to it as a "Mills diagram" and I've never heard that term either (beyond reading it in that IUPAC guideline:). DMacks (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that paper is a goldmine. According to it, it seems solid wedged lines and thick lines were used at least as early as 1930 by Georg Wittig, but for both, projecting and receding bonds. I am getting the impression from the paper that you provided that Cram & Hammond used solid wedges for projecting and dashed lines for receding bonds in their 1959 (similar to modern hydrogen bond notation), but not hatched wedges for receding bonds, as is now commonplace. I can't confirm this 100% as I couldn't find the 1959 book and the paper only provides a picture example from 1956 (by Cram & Hammond). The paper mentions hatched wedges, but doesn't examine their origins. So, the current phrasing in skeletal formula article is slightly misleading.

As a side note, Haworth projection was used as early as 1929 by Haworth in his book The Constitution of the Sugars according to this source from 1930. Haworth probably didn't use wedged lines in his early representations. The source I linked provides no picture examples, but the paper you linked doesn't mention Haworth (who since 1930 became famous)... so one can use the power of deduction. I guess my point is that current the picture in the Haworth projection article is also historically very likely to be misleading.

Somewhat off-topic, french Wikipedia calls the modern notation (probably) misleadingly the Cram representation, although, the article provides no sources. Keministi (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The MW of Asprin needs a source, automated calculations and other such nonsense is not an acceptable alternative to a reliable source presented cleanly in the infobox. Please revert your edit. Nick (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox drug about it. I'll undo my article edit pending its outcome. DMacks (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, DMacks I uploaded the video "Two Stroke Engine Animation" from Vimeo under "Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0)". You can check this fact by the link 1. To press "More" button (under the title of the video). and there will be a confirmation of the license. Why did you remove my video without checking?--Legion Legion (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I think "Do not use no-follow links" is more restrictive than CC, and the other allowed uses (only "on your website, presentations or other electronic media") is definitely not free enough to be considered CC. And it is also cited to https://savree.com/en/product/pneumatic-pinch-valve/ that asserts "all rights reserved." So regardless of which the actual original is (though that would also have to be clarified--what is your relationship with this company and their files?), there is no evidence of a sufficiently free license. DMacks (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

15:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

17:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

(Redacted personal info) Jesus I was just trying to help him out. He loves to use wikipedia so I thought this would really make him happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrilCrehs (talk • contribs) 13:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, we're trying to run an encyclopedia here not a support group. DMacks (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi DMacks,

My apologies, it was not my goal to be disruptive with my edits to the Adam Gray page. I won't dispute the revision about his wife though locals know he is single now, just never got reported on.

However the source links of the other reverts are broken. That information is also trivial and not relevant to the page. Every politician gets fined for accounting errors from time to time. Their pages shouldn't end up just being depositories for these. Dev Team 6 (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Adam Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Every politician gets fined for accounting errors from time to time" is an interesting and uncited claim. The fact that it got reported in a WP:RS means it's viable content. It doesn't matter if the link is dead (see WP:404). You are welcome to look for a source that analyzes this specific occurance to identify it as a trivial detail, but you can't synthesize ideas. Do you have some personal or professional relationship to this individual? DMacks (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not know about the etiquette for WP:404 so thanks for providing that information.

To address your request for citation, there is a state website that actually acts as a database for all of these fines. There are literally thousands. It goes back to the 1970s.

Here is a link you can see showing they issue a press release announcing fines fines basically every month: http://www.fppc.ca.gov/media/press-releases/2018-news-releases.html

And here is a link to the search database that goes back to the 70s: http://www.fppc.ca.gov/transparency/form-700-filed-by-public-officials/case-resolutions/case-result-search.html

I'm not saying the information is never relevant, but it doesn't seem appropriate to use a politician's page as a depository for every fine ever assessed against them either. Dev Team 6 (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I removed Dot Earth because it is defunct. --The lorax (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• List of environmental websites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reasonable reason, but I don't see anything in the article or talkpage that indicates it's only for currently active sites. WP:GNG is not transient (only for things that currently exist) and WP:CSC seems to be the standard for the list article, so "has a bluelink" would be the default criterion. Feel free to start a WP:AFD deletion discusison for Dot Earth or a Talk:List of environmental websites discussion regarding inclusion criteria to see if others feel differently. DMacks (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you please stop messing up my page thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayson 78756 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you please stop messing up my page thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayson 78756 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

As soon as you start complying with our standards and stop putting inappropriate article-tags there, yes. DMacks (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello DMacks,

The page of Samantha Akkineni will be protected till 25 October 2018. Since her page has been subjected to a lot of vandalism in the past, can you please extend the protection period of the page for at least a year. Thank you.

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollywood junction (talk • contribs) 12:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Is she still "in the news" or involved in imminently-releasing films? I'm inclined to lower it to PC1 and see if vandalism ramps up again. DMacks (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, but I do not understand your comments at all.

Photopolymer is causing more and more pollution, because the monomers are discarded with the water after brushing in the sink.

That technique is used more and more also for letterpress, you do not need lead type anymore, and you can do all design behind your laptop.

best wishes J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 08:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

You are writing things that you state as fact, but are not supported by a citation. I dispute the claims. The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide a cite. For example, your sentence right here, beginning with "Photopolymer is", has at least two distinct claims that are not supported (the "more and more" idea and that the waste is dumped down the regular drain). I know well that many monomers are harmful, but I also know that many industries are tightly regulated and that chemical waste is carefully monitored or at least treated on-site. Is "plasticsoup" even a word? And today (in October 2018) you added material that you state you read on "2011-06-11". DMacks (talk) 08:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Photopolymer is also used in small printshops, and lots of other places, where the users are not aware of the chemical wastes they add to the environment. Those places are not controlled at all. This fact cannot ignored for sure. The users are not warned, and the use is not limited at all.

Large chemical factories - I have worked at very large chemical factories, like DOW-Chemicals, Shell, ESSO and others, as a safety-officer - are only willing to limit their wastes, when they are forced by governmental forces. And those politicians people in governments are often just as willing to look away, because they are in many ways attached to those enterprises, and might hope to work there eventually.

And "plasticsoup" we can make it a word. In Europe it is used in several languages. J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

So basically everything is WP:OR. No. No. No. We are completely and explicitly forbidden from making up things or using our own experiences as a basis for article content. DMacks (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

dear mister, where can you point out, where your experience starts and where this ends, we all have to do with that.

Monomers like styreen and others, they are carcinogenous and toxic, why cannot this be mentioned ?

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

23:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!

A class is recently starting up again that does article improvement, obviously a good thing. The aspect that I wonder about is that the students conduct and report electronic structure calculations. Eg. from last year stannylene. From this fall tellurophene. These calculations no doubt give the students great experience but the question is are they are appropriate for Wikipedia?--Smokefoot (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Smokefoot: I think they are not appropriate. If it's really a trivial structure, then it wouldn't be useful as a student project. Of if it were useful, it would have already been covered in journals and we could use the journals as WP:RS. Or if it's not a trivial case, then it's WP:OR (and maybe the students should get it published:) DMacks (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

22:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I Have Been Updating Sarkar Wikipedia Page Of A Movie Based On The Information I Read In Twitter... And The Information Sources I Recieved Was From The Verified Twitter Handle Holders And Who Are More Involved In Film Industry ... I Haven't Got A Way To Contact Them Personally To Inquire About Giving This Movie An Political Action Title ... But The Tweets of A Verified Twitter Handle Holder Is Mostly Accurate ... Please Don't Try To Block My Account... As Im Updating Every Single Information I Gathered To Reach This Movie To Most People On The Internet ... Personally I'm Promoting This Movie ... Thank You ... Sarkar20 (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, we're writing a neutral encyclopedia here, based on independent sources. Your source is not acceptable and your whole goal is completely disallowed. DMacks (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

23:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I see you have added an advert tag to Radio Society of Great Britain. Please explain, preferably on the article talk page, what you consider as an advert. RSGB is a non profit organisation so would not use advertisements anyway. In my view nothing in the article is what most would consider breaching WP guidelines on this matter and I would request the tag is removed. Dsergeant (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

20:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

17:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You wrote "Support TBAN as chronically willing to accept", did you mean unwilling? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Yikes, yes. DMacks (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I'm sorry if I expressed myself poorly, but that's definitely not what I said. What I wrote is that, when the work is in the public domain, the published version is also in the public domain.

I'd rather say that taking the opposite side means being at odds with copyright reality and practice, let alone Wikimedia policy and Wikipedia pillars, because this is a widely recognised legal principle. You can read more about it in Threshold of originality, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., Sweat of the brow and similar cases which result into Wikimedia policy and several responses to DMCA requests.

The copyright status of work by the U.S. government is acknowledged by publishers as well, for instance Wiley ("The article will be identified as a US Government Work and will be in the public domain in the USA") and Springer ("If you are employed by the NIH… ... you cannot transfer your copyright to the publisher"). Some publishers don't actively profuse efforts signalling this copyright status, but that's another matter. Nemo 17:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I think this should have gone back to Hai-Lung Dai – I can't see any source that down-cases the hyphenated bit of his name. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yup, typo on my part. Fixed. DMacks (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!

19:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm more a vim guy but I like your work! You fight for a greater good and know how to stiff out the socks. I think you should check out the Bikini Waxing page and others similar to it. The editor seems to be of the opinion that graphic nudity is the only way to teach others about those subjects, and I am heavily against that for the sake of respecting other ages and cultures. Sadly, I don't yet have the Wikipedia credentials/history to overwrite their nudity with the non-graphic SFW and educational illustrations I've created. ARationalPerson (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I can envision some high-quality hand-drawn illustrations of the various types of waxing (compare to the uniformly styled set of diagrams at Sex positions), but your proposed image is less informative (only a general idea of complete removal) vs the exsing set that cover many different types and provide a viable variety of body contexts. For a topic that is about a specific detail (down to the level of where certain hairs are), a close view seems reasonable. There's no reason to overload on images solely for decorative purposes, but images that specifically illustrate the encyclopedia content are fine IMO. WP is decidedly not safe for work. See WP:CENSORED and WP:GALLERY. DMacks (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

23:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring that thread. Just FYI I didn't remove it because I didn't get the answer I wanted. I just realized that I hadn't really started the conversation the correct way. That being said, deleting the thread was not the best approach so I appreciate you restoring it and archiving it. I have moved forward with the conversion process and am eagerly looking for feedback. I see on your userpage that you are a chemist! Would you be willing to help me with providing feedback? I really need experts to help me figure out stuff that I'm missing. I'm pretty darn good with the technical side of templates, but my experience with chemistry stopped in high school so... Anyway, would love to hear any thoughts you may have! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I see you reverted my change. Just want to point out that I've been trying to get input and consensus for a week and haven't gotten anyone to respond. As for being disruptive, the change has been well tested and doesn't disrupt anything. I don't understand how deprecating a template could be disruptive? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Given I see multiple editors objecting on process and style grounds, you are strongly advised to take it slow. If it weren't so many pages involved, I would roll back all of your changes to every chemical article per WP:BRD. But disruption following disruption doesn't serve us well. Others have objected to the process, the results, raised concerns (that you and others are addressing) about functionality/layout, and you seem to have done your best to work out of visibility of those most affected. That's all really annoying to those of us who actually write the articles. I admire the technical ability of those who work on complex templates, but that work needs the support of those who use them in articles.

A major overhaul needs major testing by the stakeholders, not just the developers, and any conversion should be done slowly to make sure there aren't unexpected things happening. Which obviously "there might be" because by definition they are unexpected. DMacks (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your concerns are the reason I have been trying from day one to reach out to people like yourself. All you seem interested in doing is calling my work disruptive. So... Not sure what your point is? As I have said in multiple, MULTIPLE post (, , , , , , ) I am very interested in hearing concerns and opposition. Look, lets take a step back. It looks like we got off on the wrong foot. I went forward with too much steam. So I'm going to hurry up and SLOW DOWN. I may have the technical ability of those who work on complex templates that you mentioned, but I NEED the input of those who use the templates! I've been trying for over a week to get the input! I've even been posting in the wikichem IRC channel. Please, any concerns you have, please detail them! I want to make sure that they are all addressed. This template needs to work for the articles and those who edit them. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

For what is is worth, I do want to apologize again. Believe it or not, there was no attempt by me to shove this down anyone's throat or force things through. I was trying to do this the right way and helpful and constructive. I just got overly excited. I realize there is a difference between intentions and perceptions, but hope my intent counts for something. Anyway, hopefully the work I've done will be useful to you all. Best, --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

22:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

16:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Seair Pacific logo.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) 18:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Physostigmine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Friedländer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

17:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree - on the most fundamental level - your erroneous reasoning for reverting further info on Borodin. The primary purpose of Wikipedia is the help increase knowledge, and if a reader's curiosity is whetted by the fact that Borodin was also a renowned composer, which prompt's the reader to look further into his history, well, so much the better. And at no loss whatsoever to the thrust of the article on the Aldol reaction.Jmn100 (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe WP:BIOGRAPHY would be a useful project to ask for the general idea. For the record, he was also notable for his work on women's rights at a time when that was a rarity, which might be at least of more interest to today's readers. DMacks (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

DMack, I think you'll find that the harsh working conditions were the biggest factor - and 'exceptionally' seems well justified. Valetude (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

How goes it? Hope you had a good week. Wanted to see if you might have some time this weekend for a conversation about that template? Not pushing or rushing anything. Just interested in feedback if you have some time. Hope you are well. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Been another two weeks now. Do you have any feedback? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

To answer your edit-summary question: personally, I think it's better to split it between the by-century categories, rather than leaving it in the centuryless form (due to category size). That's generally the rule of thumb I try to follow.

Thanks for spotting and fixing. I try to do what I can, but it's far from a perfect science. Happy editing! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up! I have no opinion on the issue. DMacks (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)