User talk:DMacks/Archive 45

Archive 40Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 50

edit content of Chromatography page

Hi DMacks, I understand your point of view. But I have limited my edit to what is already claimed in the abstract on Analytical Chemistry that as you know is already peer reviewed. Also, I can tell you that our software was already used and soon will be published in a publication in Nature Biotechnology. Is also already mention in a review of R software I think that scientist should use more Wikipedia page to give more advances about their work. Also, I don't think I am overselling, i don't say that is perfect. Is a prediction, is accurate but not perfect. I am a scientist not a seller :-) What do you think? is my first edit in Wikipedia and still do not know exactly how it works, and i am very happy to learn from someone good like you. Thanks Paolo PaoloBnn (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I think lots of what you are saying is a reasonable perspective for someone talking about their own work. An abstract summarizes an article, and an article can make all sorts of predictions and proposals and claims about applicability, and referees can accept based on "this is a reasonable-sounding claim". But ACS referees do not actually verify your experiments, validate your results, test whether something truely is as applicable as you claim, or necessatrily redo all your likely literature searches. That is, it is a WP:PRIMARY source. By formal policy, we are forbidden from any writing or use meant to "get the word out", promote our works, or other sorts of advocacy or promotion (see WP:PROMOTION).
Unfortunately, it's really hard to write about one's own work in a neutral way:( For example, here you say the scope is "liquid chromatography for every system", but the article itself only seems like it is metabolomic-related compounds. Wikipedia is ultra-conservative with novel topics. Your use of the term "empower" sounds like a marketting buzzword not a neutral encyclopedia statement. The metabolomics article has at least one recent review-article cited, which discusses multiple software packages. That sort of WP:SECONDARY source is really need here. That is, someone outside of your lab commenting on your work, such as its scope and novelty, not you talking about your own work. Then our article helps readers understand the different ideas in context. Notice, for example, how the rest of that article talks about ideas, not generally in-depth writing about specific pieces of software.
You mention that there is a "rerview of R software" that includes this program. That might be a good ref to use (along with substantially trimmed content), depending on what it says. DMacks (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Request

I need to request you that please delete the revision [1] as RD3 as that revision was purely disruptive or delete as the reason WP:RD2 as it also violates a biography of a living person or delete as the reason "Vandalism" because that revision is not supposed to be visible. Thanks. 182.64.182.198 (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like User:Anarchyte got it. Thanks to them, and sorry I did not notice this message here earlier. DMacks (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

17:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

14:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

edit content of Ahmadiya page

Dear Creffett & DMacks

I made it more neutral by removing the word "sect of Islam" if you check with Muslims around the world 100% of them will declare Ahmedi as non-muslim as they don't believe the preaching of Islam. Is it just like if I got to Scientology and say I don't believe in science but I am Scientologist, or I will be a calling myself GAY but I don't like to have sex with other men but only women?

Nobody cares what Muslims in general, or you personally think about the identity of anyone else. That's part of our WP:NPOV policy, and what makes us an encyclopedia rather than an editorial. DMacks (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC) If someone tries to associate with something, then rules of that association are to be followed. As shared in my earlier suggestion the neutrality goes both ways. By your (DMacks (talk)) own tone in reply to me and also insisting on declaring them Muslims you have gone against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abkhalid (talkcontribs) 17:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I see a block in someone's future. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

22:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Having problem with free basics

Hello, I am facing a trouble. I can't edit with free basics, but I can edit normally. My ip is blocked in free basics. Please help me to edit wiki from free basics without data charges. Thanks. Have a good day. Emdad Tafsir (talk)Emdad TafsirEmdad Tafsir (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Emdad Tafsir. I have no idea what Free Basics is or what specific block affects it. What is the exact error message you are getting? Maybe UTRS (see Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System) is would be better equipped to investigate? DMacks (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Browse internet.org where you can visit a lot of site without data charges. In bangla Wikipedia, I also faces same trouble, they fixed it and gave me IP block Exemptions tag. Now I cam edit with it without any trouble. Please help me to contribute in english wiki also. Thanks Emdad Tafsir (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like Free Basics is blocked as a proxy server. IPBE could be handled by the UTRS I linked previously. DMacks (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about that. The CU tool has a built-in feature that allows mass-blocking accounts, and I guess it got confused by the sock's redirect. Having it follow a redirect seems like a bug to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries. I've been bitten by that TW bug also:) DMacks (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

21:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This Month in Education: May 2020

This Month in Education

Volume 9 • Issue 5 • May 2020


ContentsHeadlinesSubscribe


In This Issuse

Response

   Believe me, you have my sympathy.

Please inform/remind me where you explained, and i shall, for instanceː

  1. apologize for my ignorance or carelessness, as appropriate
  2. decide you're not worthy of my attention
  3. whatever

(I am unlikely, this far on, to put on my avenging veteran admin garb.) --userːJerzyA (sorry, the tildes and brackets aren't working right; doesn't matter, as Paris/Geneva/Cape Town time is now 2ː40 AM, so your talkpage's log is more reliable than what a correctly generated sig would do to authenticate me)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JerzyA (talkcontribs) 00:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I responded on your user-talk. Always happy to discuss, and not leave something dangling unresolved or with hard feelings. DMacks (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

PubChem

In case you hadn't noticed, the change to PubChem which Batreeq had made was to change the file from .png to .svg; I merely sorted out his syntax error. You commented on the size, but if you look at the rendering of the svg without explicit size you will see that it is displayed excessively large. I don't know why the change from png to svg was made, and I have no opinion one way or the other. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I had completely missed the file-format change; reverted. I'm too used to infoboxes that only take "plain filename" and then do standard formatting within them:( DMacks (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

21:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Chem molar mass/format

Hello. Regarding your edit at [27]. {{{Value}}} will always have a value (see the way it is called from Template:Chem molar mass) but it is "0" if it isn't calculated from the atoms. Christian75 (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah thanks! That explains why my intersection-cat scanning was giving false positives. DMacks (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

18:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This Month in Education: June 2020

This Month in Education

Volume 9 • Issue 6 • June 2020


ContentsHeadlinesSubscribe


In This Issuse

16:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

20:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Company-list table end

 Template:Company-list table end has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

16:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on the article regarding Santa Claus

Please see: Talk:Santa Claus#RfC about the wording lead section of the article. Félix An (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

About draft

I have been globally locked due to an misunderstanding, but they unlocked me anyway. So, I request you to undelete the draft I created. Thanks. A. Shohag 05:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  Done. Welcome back! DMacks (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. A. Shohag 15:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

19:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Help with importing a non-free file from Commons

Hi DMacks! Can I ask if it would be possible for you to locally import file:Emmanuel Issoze-Ngondet.jpg (from the Commons to Wikipedia) so that it may be used under fair use on Emmanuel Issoze-Ngondet? Thanks, --Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you clarify some of its tagging? You added {{No source since}} but the description says:
|source=http://www.affaires-etrangeres.gouv.ga/
|author=Ministère des Affaires Etrangères
And regarding licensing, there is an OTRS ticket listed. If that ticket supports open-license, then we don't need to do fair-use and it can stay on commons. But if there is a sourcing problem, then that makes it unusable even under fair-use on enwiki. I've reached out to an OTRS agent to get more information about the ticket (presumably if it includes a declaration of proper license release it also would support a specific source, even if we can't state in detail what that source is). Will follow up with more info when I hear back... DMacks (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
The OTRS ticket does not refer to this specific image (neither license nor source), merely the nature of the {{FCO}} tag in general. The image also states "This file comes from the Flickr stream of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office", which seems to contradict the |source=. If it's originally from that Ministère, then the FCO licensing is not relevant. Even if it were to be on FCO's flickr stream, "Note: This permission only extends to content provided by the FCO and does not include third-party content." If instead it's FCO's content being hosted on the Ministère's site, then we need more specific sourcing to be able to verify that fact. Either way, I do not think there is currently enough information to meet the NFCC policy burden about sourcing. DMacks (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. It would appear the real source of the image is from this website. --Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Clarification: the original (but not immediate) source for the image is indeed affaires-etrangeres.gouv.ga. Do you think this would meet the NFCC policy burden? Best, --Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Good detective work! The gouv.ga site (full image) does not have an open license, and wazobiaglobaltimes (cropped image, on commons) neither has an open license nor gives credit to gouv.ga. I think we could use either image by NFCC, cited specifically to where we get it. If we use the crop, we don't need to cite the full from which they cropped it. And regardless, the OFC tagging and OTRS ticket are off-topic. Could you update the description on commons? Then I'll transfer it and delete there. That way, even the deleted material is *correct* and clarifies why it had to be deleted. DMacks (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks DMacks. I've updated the image details on Commons, including links to both sources (the immediate and original), while removing the bogus licence. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
All done. Thanks for bearing with this drawn-out process and working on articles on interesting topics! DMacks (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Atom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dissolve.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

13:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Deleted file restoration

Hi DMacks, do you think you could restore the file:Bruce Millan 1992.jpg? OTRS permission for the image is confirmed by the ticket:2019112010009942. Thanks, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 09:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I revived that version on the enwiki file and also added linked and updated the source URL. There seems to be a larger image at that source, maybe upload it to this enwiki and then we can send the whole thing to commons? Or else just upload that higher quality one to commons and not bother with this enwiki history at all? DMacks (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

15:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

This Month in Education: July 2020

This Month in Education

Volume 9 • Issue 7 • July 2020


ContentsHeadlinesSubscribe


In This Issuse

Ammonium nitrate and "critical mass"

Hi DMacks,

I am sorry that I do not understand the "Talk" function in Wikipedia and find the jungle that the links in the email sent to me by Wikipedia incredibly confusing. I like the idea of including the reference to runaway chemical reactions - that is what happens under the right conditions with Ammonium Nitrate whether it is supplementing combustible material as an oxidising agent, or simply explosively decomposing in its own right, or a combination of both.

However, the more I think about it, the less relevant any idea of "critical mass" becomes to me when talking about chemical explosives. ANY amount of the right chemical substances can undergo a runaway exothermic reaction under the right conditions of temperature or pressure. Under the right conditions of confinement, it will lead to an explosion. In other words, I don't think that the concept of "critical mass" or critical amount applies. If the amount is really small, it just isn't much of an explosion. Unfortunately, we saw yesterday what 2,750 tons of AN can do under the right conditions.

Bunmoh (talk) 03:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bunmoh: Wikipedia has a TON of features and ways of using them, no question it can be confusing! I agree that the "mass" itself is not the sole concern (as you note, temperature and confinement matter, which also relates to shape of the material). And also not every runaway reaction is explosive by nature. How about "Both decomposition reactions are exothermic. Consequently, under certain conditions, it can become a runaway reaction, which can lead to an explosion." ? DMacks (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dmacks - I had a crack at a further edit along the lines you suggest. What do you think? I believe that, in the case of AN, atmospheric pressure is enough of a confinement to cause an explosion once that runaway reaction takes hold. Here in Australia, it is used in bulk in the mining industry, especially to help with removing large volumes of dirt and overburden in open cut mines. In that case, it is usually buried in holes, soaked with diesel fuel and detonated with an explosive charge, so the explosion is partly its role as an oxidiser for the diesel fuel and partly explosive decomposition. Bunmoh (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Nice. I tweaked it a little more. We'd need a cited source that atmospheric pressure is sufficient confinement. Our ANFO article talks about the mixture with diesel fuel. DMacks (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Last comment - I think the text of this little passage is about as good as it can get now. It is both concise and accurate. Bunmoh (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

16:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome
 
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Windscreen

I wrote a sentence to define formaldehyde as a colourless gas. Unlike USA, the rest of the world is using colour, not color. Also polymerisation is spelt with z in my language, but in non-American countries, British English spelling is more common. Acetonitrile, acetyl chloride, carbon tetrachloride have the spelling "colourless". LeticiaLL (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Not acetyl chloride, oxalyl chloride LeticiaLL (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Also thionyl chloride, phosphorus pentachloride. You can't believe but hydrogen chloride has "colourless" spelling too LeticiaLL (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said, see WP:ENGVAR. I won't bother re-typing the basis for that guideline here, except to emphasize that it's "per-article" not "per-editor" and that the guideline has widespread consensus as the style guide here on Wikipedia. DMacks (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Reverting Edits and Citations of Chris Piche

Hi DMacks you state "Copyvio" for a proper Official Legal source where I cited and provided a Judgement Summary from Canlii a Official Legal Public Database that specifically allows copying.

"...legal materials published on the CanLII website, such as legislation, decisions and commentary, including editorial enhancements inserted into the documents by CanLII such as hyperlinks and information in headers and footers, can be copied, printed and used by Users free of charge and without any other authorization from CanLII, provided that CanLII is identified as the source of the document." "https://www.canlii.org/en/info/terms.html"

Court decisions and opinions, as well as the actual texts of laws, are not protected at all under US copyright laws. This goes back to Wheaton v. Peters, and there have been a number of broader holding since. So anyoen claiming that quoting a court decision is a copyright violation is simply mistaken. (by: DESiegel given to me in the new user section)

Furthermore if my additions to this BLP are somehow wrong and/or copyright violations that would make every BLP with a List of Lawsuits and/or a summary of the Judgment a "Copyvio" using your description.

For example the President's BLP or any other BLP on Wiki that contains Legal references and/or a legal summary copied from a Judgement are those other BLP pages subject to deletion?

And how do I list lawsuits in a BLP with links to primary sources that is the actual final Judgement without it being a "Copyvio"?

Facts are facts (From Wiki :) If someone has been convicted of multiple counts of murder and grand theft, it's not a BLP violation to mention those facts with appropriate sourcing, even though most editors would agree such facts reflect poorly on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonFireWar (talkcontribs) 19:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@DragonFireWar: Let's keep this centralized on Wikipedia:Teahouse, where multiple other editors have already chimed in while I was offline. DMacks (talk) 03:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

20:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding edit on article on CBSE

Hello, I have noticed that my edits to include the Scheme of Studies and Subjects Offered by CBSE on its own article have been undone by you. I just read your message at my Talk page.

Actually, I did not know that you had already reverted my edits. I had already started editing the article, much before you reverted my edits, and published it much later. Thus, unknowingly I had published it again, along with several other additions to the article. Moreover, I did not receive any notifications regarding the undoing of my edits. I am regretful for my actions.

I would like to discuss the matter with you before any subsequent edits on this article. Can you please tell why the edits seemed to you as disruptive? I believe that it will be in the best interests of the students and their guardians to know about the scheme of studies, if they can gain this information from a reliable source as Wikipedia. I understand the importance of correct facts in Wikipedia, and thus would add References to whatever edit I make. Moreover, I believe that basic topics like the list of subjects and the scheme of studies which is important for students so as to make good choices for the subjects that they will be taking for further studies.

In the case of the section of Grade cut-offs, which contains just 15 subjects of class XII in 2018, out of the 160+ subjects offered by the board in the 2018 Board exam, not even all the cells are filled with relevant information, and there are no references to support the relevance of the data. The article also contains the grade cut-offs over the years (1992-2012) for a single subject (Hindi Elective-002) out of so many subjects, this subject (Hindi Elective-002) is not even among the most popular ones. If such sections are not disruptive, how can be my section be so disruptive?

Yours Sincerely, Soukarya (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The best source of current policies and other information specific to current students is the organization's own website. Instead, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for general readership. Specific details like history of grade cutoffs or course-sequences are not "encyclopediac" information. As a comparable guideline, WP:WPSCH/AG identifies content that is appropriate for an encyclopedia vs what is only of interest to current affiliates. I removed the Hindi tables...I agree that they sound too small a detail to include. DMacks (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)