User talk:DMacks/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions with User:DMacks. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please see the Roger Tsien article for the support of claims about patents: "Tsien is also a notable biochemical inventor and holds or co-holds about 100 patents till 2010. In 1996, Tsien co-founded the Aurora Biosciences Corporation, which started its public commerce in 1997. In 2001, Aurora was acquired by the Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Similarly, Tsien was also a scientific co-founder of Senomyx in 1999.[7]" Why target Youvan when we have so many problems with citing patent references in WP? Do you plan to go through all the biographies with such stringency? Frank Layden (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I got emotional. This place is full of paid editors. People trash Youvan because he is a Creationist. Would you help me insert some secondary references? Frank Layden (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm on semi-vacation for next few days, will take a look when I get back. DMacks (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll make a "to do" list of references but it might take longer than your vacation. Frank Layden (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Youvan's article is being attacked apparently because he is a Creationist. I don't know if I want to be involved any longer. Here is what I have for you on secondary references:

1. Reaction Centers of Photosynthetic Bacteria Michel Beyerle, page 307.

2. Diesenhofer and Michele's Nobel Lecture on reaction centers

3. Chalfie and Tsien's Nobel lecture on GFP

4. Not in hand, but a paper including Bylina and Norris wherein the heterodimer mutant was remade in a species crystallized and diffracted to atomic resolution.

5. Numerous other labs still studying his mutants and recreating them in their favorite species for PChem studies. This would include J. Thomas Beatty (Canada), Neal Woodbury (ASU), Mel Okamura (UCSD), Steve Boxer (Stanford), and continuing work by Holten and Kirmeier(WU of St. Louis).

Deletion of the Zeiss reference and the Biotechnology et alia reference leaves WP with no reference to the best of the FRET corrections employed on the Zeiss Axiomat. Having established himself in the field, I thought we had a WP rule for minimal use of self publication - if you consider his et alia paper self published.

Notable students: Adam P. Arkin, Simon Delagrave, Edward J. Bylina

Spouses: Mary M. Yang, Oranan Archariyaporn, Jessica Pringle

Please take care of this article. I see this as an embarrassment for WP, as a Creation debate has spilled over into the man's science and math. Frank Layden (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Frank Layden (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

D: There are a couple other things I should tell you. It appears someone split up the Genetic Code article simply to get Youvan's figure off the main page. It's now fixed - you have to look at the history. But the subsections remain a mess. We need to turn everything back. That was a well written article. Also, a few months ago, the "Manage Your Reputation" people offered page protection of Youvan for $200 / month, apparently because I am writing a book that includes him. I declined. Things will go downhill quickly if Admins, such as yourself, don't act to counter these deleterious edits. Frank Layden (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I do realize that what you see on youvan.org is abrasive to the point of deserving excommunication from science, but that is not our job.

Also, the FRET paper you removed was not self-published. Court records show Mary M. Yang as holding 100% shares of Karios (administering Biotechnology et alia). The paper was edited by "Ad Hoc Editor: Professor George Phillips". Additionally, I do not understand why the Zeiss publication was removed. It has great FRET images using what they call "Youvan's Method" which I also see on their drop-down menu. You have deprived microscopists of the source equations; they are likely to look to Youvan's bio for details. Frank Layden (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Just as an example to illustrate my point: WP has an article on Chromecast. I picked a random number: 38. Look at reference 38 for Chromecast. It's basically a commercial ad complete with reader comments and ads up and down the sides of the pages. Why can that be used as a reference while the deleted Zeiss article (very academic) can not? Frank Layden (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

This is now a month old. Please take it off my hands. I would like to move to an example in Special Relativity, which would be my first major contribution to WP. Please also look at Richard_J._Roberts. We allow reference to the Humanist Manefesto in Rich's case, but not to Dissent from Darwin in Doug's case. Through my biographic research, I happen to know that the two are friends and this would be discussed objectively as a horrible bias in WP rather than an argument over evolution. Can you ask another admin to help? Frank Layden (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Just inserted: "Youvan's work on proteins that interact with light is referenced in two Nobel Prize Lectures: by Roger Y. Tsien on GFP and by Diesenhofer and Michel for photosynthetic reaction centers." Frank Layden (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If we assume good faith and say just for kicks that the original uploader just happens to have remarkably similar behaviors to a blocked sock master, is there other evidence that it is not an official site? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no information that it is or is-not the official site. DMacks (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

DMacks , I uploaded it 1 week ago , but you said it had copyright errors ,so please remove it or check its problems solved ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishad Pkn (talk • contribs) 18:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello there!

Our February WikiSalon is coming up on Sunday, February 23. Join us at our gathering of Wikipedia enthusiasts at the Kogod Courtyard of the National Portrait Gallery with an optional dinner after. As usual, all are welcome. Care to join us?

Also, if you are available, there is an American Art Edit-a-thon being held at the Smithsonian American Art Museum with Professor Andrew Lih's COMM-535 class at American University on Tuesday, February 11 from 2 to 5 PM. Please RSVP on the linked page if you are interested.

If you have any ideas or preferences for meetups, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/DC.

Thank you, and hope to see you at our upcoming events! Harej (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I am reaching out to inquire about recreating the "Hang w/" page on Wikipedia. I plan on recreating the page in the next few days and was directed to contact you before hand.

Since the first attempt to create the page, Hang With, Inc. has closed a Series A funding of $2,000,000 (valuing the company at $20 million), received numerous investments from notable celebrities such as 50Cent and surpassed over 1,000,000 downloads.

Please let me know if there are any further steps that are required before I recreate the page.

Prologue13 (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you wait until someone completely unaffiliated with the company writes it (see WP:COI to learn why), and is able to use multiple published sources that are independent of the company (see WP:RS for this important Wikipedia requirement). Not recognizing the importance of the latter problem is a symptom of the former one. DMacks (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read it..

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eQ336xPX7yI/UuFYr53tjWI/AAAAAAAABnQ/HAWMMCeivio/s1600/Johnson.V+The+Ultimate+Platform+Ultimate+Platform+Great+Quotes+Quotable+Quotes+English.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokakshemam (talk • contribs) 23:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to read a blog about a topic in which I am not particularly interested. DMacks (talk) 11:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Multiple users have been deleting/re-adding the content on the aforementioned page. User:TheRedPenofDoom claims the content is trivial and should not be on Wikipedia. On the other hand, it's common practice among many reality shows all over the world. I don't know how to ask admins to step in, but I know you're an admin. Can you intervene? Nadesai (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Article protected for a week to allow everyone to continue the talkpage discussion without simultaneous edit-war. DMacks (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that the Mnemonic section of the Essential Amino Acids page was cluttered and unsightly, I'd like to point out that the two citations attributed to the section are invalid. Although I do deem it somewhat questionable how one may 'cite' a mnemonic.

I have no objection to removing them all. One of the three refs did appear to be broken...I fixed the lifehugger.com weblink; medicalmnemonics.com works for me (I adjusted the format of the ref a bit) and I don't have a copy of Basic and Applied Dental Biochemistry handy to verify that one. But the general idea of Wikipedia is that "we say what others have already said in reliable sources". Anyone can make up (or report hearing from others) a mnemonic, but only those that are interesting, useful, or popular enough to be used in other publications meet the level of importance to bother including (to prevent running afoul of WP:OR, etc.). It's not that we need to cite that it is true for something that is a direct fact (or translation of one) (WP:TRUTH is not the minimum bar for inclusion). DMacks (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The isomer set of a x-Methyl-y-penten-2-one (unsaturated 2-Hexanone, C6 H10 O) is a combination of all possible methyl group and carbon double bond positions. For the methyl group, only positions 3, 4 and 5 are available, since pos. 2 is occupied by the oxygen double bond. Appending the methyl group at pos. 1 yields a 3-one (3-Hexanone) with another set of unsaturated C6 H10 O isomers, and so on (to finally yield all unsaturated Hexanone isomers). For the carbon double bond, only positions 3 and 4 are possible in a x-Methyl-y-penten-2-one, since carbon has only 4 valence electrons to share, and the final methyl group bond affords all of them. Therefore, no double bond C5=C6 can be formed in a x-Methyl-y-penten-2-one. In other words:

$ python
Python 2.7.5 (default, Nov 12 2013, 16:18:42)
[GCC 4.8.2 20131017 (Red Hat 4.8.2-1)] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> import itertools
>>> for x, y in itertools.product([3, 4, 5], [3, 4]): print "%d-Methyl-%d-penten-2-one" % (x, y)
...
3-Methyl-3-penten-2-one
3-Methyl-4-penten-2-one
4-Methyl-3-penten-2-one
4-Methyl-4-penten-2-one
5-Methyl-3-penten-2-one
5-Methyl-4-penten-2-one
>>>

--El Cazangero (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Doing blind combinatorial patterns also gives "names" that violate standard systematic nomenclature rules (a methyl on C5 of a "pent" parent instead makes it a straight-chain "hex" parent). But taking a step back, what's the encyclopediac goal here? Each chemical is unique (obviously) in many ways, so what is the value of listing isomers of it (and only those of certain structural classes--why only branched chain and 2-ones)? DMacks (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that this page keeps getting created and deleted. I just want you to know that this is an old account of mine from long ago and I was paid to put that page up originally by Ali Pabrai himself. I no longer am employed by him and I just want to let you know that I am happy it is being deleted as I know I published it wrongfully a long time ago.

Hollowbelly15 (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. DMacks (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, If light in fiber optics isn't transmitting data, then what it is transmitting?
Thanks--Wyn.junior (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The article notes that fiber optics are used for lighting, just a constant-strength light-pipe in some cases. And larger-diameter bundles are used to transmit images directly (rather than digitally encoded/decoded using a camera/etc). DMacks (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like those are rare exceptions to the rule and that fiber optics almost always transmit data.--Wyn.junior (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Light pipes for illumination are fairly common (cars, microscopes, forehead-mounted lights, decades-worth of decorative room lamps). Given that there are well known and/or common (regardless of how often one knows one is experiencing them) "non-data" uses, you can't say "data, period". Regardless, the lead of the article solely summarizes the article, so if the article talks about non-data uses, the lead can't contradict or limit it. DMacks (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe that transmitting pictures directly is still considered transmitting data.--Wyn.junior (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to agree with common usage. For example, one talks about a CD or DVD being used to store specifically images/music/movies as opposed to just "data", even though it's all 1s and 0s on the medium. An image is a specific kind of spatially arranged multivariable data. Readers know what images are, and many will know that computers deal with a generic material called "data" that is transmitted typically in digitally encoded form. That might mean pulses of light (internet companies are happy to advertise that!). But the kind of thing an actual visual representation an image is might not be what readers think of as "data" in a computer sense. We should write to be clear to all audiences even if it sounds redundant to experts. DMacks (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Why did you delete the SCSI Request Sense Command page? It is still linked to by several other articles, and was very informative to me. Now I wished I had saved it offline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.183.35.1 (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• SCSI Request Sense Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As the red box says, "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SCSI Test Unit Ready Command". There was a discussion, and an admin found there was a consensus to delete. I guess I missed some of the incoming links...I'll unlink them when I get a chance. DMacks (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there any possible way that I can get a copy of the deleted page? It was very helpful to me. I will be making offline copies of the related pages before they end up getting deleted too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximus57 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mucobromic acid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elimination (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that you've reverted an edit I made to the Fioricet page.

What would be the correct way to place this information on the page in a properly-cited fashion? I can't exactly post a link to my pharmacy wholesaler's online ordering page, as nobody but customers can log on there. Shalom S. (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Please check the deleted version of this page to see if WP:CSD#A10 applies and if not, if a WP:HISTMERGE would be beneficial and/or is legally required. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be a different film (not same director or language, no overlap among the lists of starring actors). DMacks (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, a newly registered account, who is likely a sock puppet of Indiggo77, kept putting unsourced promos to Indiggo like what Indigg77 did, and engaged in edit warring. Is it possible to protect the page again? And is it possible to add the info of the new account to the current sock puppetry investigation? Thanks! BigCat82 (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Sir, How can i add a technical event organised by our college every year as a page

~Sp!Deys~ (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)jinoy

It would have to meet WP:GNG requirements to exist as an article. It would have to be written without any promotional feel. DMacks (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! Thank you for your comments. Yes, I realised the link-pipe thing after a few of them and have since started pasting their entire titles when linking. Yes, AfC would benefit from a more standardised way of calling for Project help, and we've started discussions on that aspect. However, it's proved a bit daunting, given there are hundreds if not thousands of them, and there's no way of categorising submissions within AfC at the moment (and so this would have to be an entirely human endeavour). On top of this, some Projects have no active members, therefore I think a standardised list of knowledgeable editors would be more suitable. This also amounted to nothing when proposed. The AfC subpage seems like a prudent way to start. We'd still rely on notifying the Projects of the existence of said list and their will to check it regularly. I'd support this if proposed. Thanks for your help! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe I possibly mixed up holding temperature with brewing temperature. The coffee wiki then does not state correct brewing temperature. I also believe that the SCAA and SCAE are extremely reputable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linuxandcoffee9 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

— Harej (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the article was protected by you probably because I had changed the information about her place of birth without reference (in violation of WP:BLP). After the change was reverted by Krimuk90, I had added reference (in Malayalam). The change was again reverted by user:Krimuk90 for discussions. The change was discussed under this section in the talk page. English translation of the reference in Malayalam language was also provided there.

I suppose the protection can be removed now, since changes made with proper inline references (with English translation of reference discussed in the talk page) is not in violation of the policy on biography of living persons. --Drajay1976 (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Glad you and others have worked it out! Unprotected. DMacks (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

DMacks,

Thanks for ruining my question on Science Reference Desk, Alloy with electrical resistivity sharply increasing over a certain temperature

Your stupid persistent postings on what your clearly have no idea about has taken it all off topic, and by the bulk it now takes up, makes it quite unlikley that a person who does know the answer, or knows how to find out the answer, will contribute.

Nobody should object to someone who has an incomplete understanding geniunely trying to be helpfull. They provide a clue. But that doesn't apply to you - you clearly have no idea of the subject at all, and you know you have no idea.

I may post the question again in the future. Kindly do not respond to it. When someone who can usefully answer or supply a clue sees it without a great chat, they might answer it - then I and anyone else will learn something.

You claim to be an administrator. I would have thought that being an admin comes with a sense of responsibility. A sense that if one has no idea what the answer is, then leave it for someone who does.

If the question is about a metal, why post, as you did, about a ceramic?

What is all that nonsense about a patent search? You just trying to show how "smart" you are? It means nothing unless you cite the patent. Nickel is a metal - as such it follows the CVD equation - its resistance increases smoothly with temperature, following the well known law I = kV^0.6. Putting a nickel element in series with an imperfect current regulator will thus clearly make regulation worse, and if in series with a very good current regulator (ie I independent of V) will only cause a useless waste of power.

I've posted questions on Wikipedia Reference Desks other than Science, and on other non-Wikipedia forums - and generally got very good helpful answers. It seems that Wikipedia Science Desk is infested with idiots like you and Medeis - not suprising then that Science Desk only attracts 2 or 3 questions a day (it was a lot more a few years ago).

120.145.178.113 (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you consider his unblock request? Daniel Case (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure who we're talking about...

Assaksgian1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

doesn't seem to exist. DMacks (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I meant Assiaksgian1 (talk · contribs). Daniel Case (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, first thank you so much for unblocking and then i got a questions since i am new on wikipedia: what to do if i forget my password again?Because Wikipedia only allows one to be logged in for 30 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assiaksgian1 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You're the admin. Why are you asking me to solve it? I don't like you or this community, goodbye

You're the worst administrator ever goodbye

BYE WIKIPEDIA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatcherStorm (talk • contribs) 15:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your good edits. I used the nbsp's to increasing the spacing to either side of the IE values. They look a bit squishy now. Ditto the band structure values being hard up to the left hand side of their column. I like the cells of my tables to have more or less consistent margins. How do you see this? Sandbh (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

(I assume you mean EN not IE?). I used the "padding" cell property to put some whitespace. Let me know if that's the sort of result you are looking to get. DMacks (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. EN, not IE. I think that table looks good, thank you. While I'm here would you have the time and inclination, in the very near future, for a subject matter expertise sweep of the metalloid article? Background is, User:John did a copy-edit of it. This occured at the suggestion of one of the FAC moderators, Ian Rose. The end result is that the article looks very sharp now. In his closing comments, John asked if the article could be looked at by another copy-editor and a subject-matter expert. I asked User:Dirac66 if he could do both. The copyediting he said was already very good. He said he was more of physical chemist than an inorganic chemist but left some comments on the metalloid talk page all of which I've addressed apart from the first one. I expect to have that one done shortly. Cheers, Sandbh (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm mostly organic, but I can take a look if anything jumps out as questionable (or at least in need of clarification). DMacks (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Good news. After making some adjustments in light of Dirac66's comments, John said the article looks great so I'll go ahead and resubmit it as a FAC, shortly. I'll let you know when it goes up. Thanks for your interest and help. Sandbh (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Great work! Glad to hear it be recognized. DMacks (talk) 09:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your helpful suggestions! I've responded, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1. Perhaps you could revisit your position there? — Cirt (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your Support ! Would it be alright with you if we moved your addressed comments to the talk page of the FAC ? — Cirt (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sure, feel free to do whatever housekeeping necessary (and sorry for goofing up the workflow:) DMacks (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, and no worries, — Cirt (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Your page User:DMacks/Chembox Identifiers test is in Category:Chembox templates. It sort of distracts the overview. Could you de-cat it (rm the category, or add a colon)? -DePiep (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Or better yet, I just deleted the page. DMacks (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. While we are at Chembox. I discovered you initiated the single parameter rang-input for {{convert}}. Very convincing, and when that {convert} bug is gone, in a few weeks, I'll introduce that. In this flow, I'm also developing to allow the unit (C, F, K) in that single input: so chembox accepts input |1=10 to 20 C and |1=-30 to -20 °F. Nice eh, and more less of these parameters. If you have any ideas & considerations for this, please note them so I can steal use them. -DePiep (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tower of London (disambiguation) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *[[The Tower of London (novel)}''The Tower of London'' (novel)]], a 19th-century novel by William Harrison Ainsworth

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

do you need this page, or can we delete it? Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Gone. DMacks (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User DMacks, my sources are reliable as everyone can see. Obviously you are not open-minded and objective enough to accept other opinions beside yours. Please don't pretend to follow any honorable approach and publish proven facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facinelli14 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are you removing cited information with a claim that "all citable points should be included"? That seems exactly the opposite of an honorable claim. DMacks (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that "different from" is coming into general use and taking over, the use has always been "This (thing, situation etc) is different to that" and "this differs from that". Just as one one writes "black is to white as this is to that". While it is clear how the common use of "from" in the first context has derived from the second, write in British English and prefer the first form. "Different than" is plainly erroneous. Yet it is about as common as the use of the word "myself" in the wrong context by ignorant people. "Myself and my friends are going to the match."

Just for the record, I wrote the entire article, except for a few lines, so I am not randomly trying to force my preference on an article that I don't have a particular interest in. I would not attempt to change an article written in American English to a more British form.

Amandajm (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

As I noted in my edit-summary, the same WP:ENGVAR guideline that says we write in a consistent form in each article and respect original dialect if the subject itself has no obvious ties explicitly recommends to use common-ground forms whenever possible. Regardless of how "British" an article should be rather than "American", being "something widely recognized as acceptable in both" would win. Unfortunately, we can't enforce our own views of how a language "should be" in any formal or systematic way, only obey how it is. DMacks (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Either you are an illiterate person or your brain is half cooked. I am NOT assuming ownership over anything and neither am I engaging in edit wars. if anything, it is you retards who keep acting like a pest by ruining my article. If you wish to contribute links etc. then go ahead. What I have a problem with, is not people CONTRIBUTING to my article, but people DELETING entire swathes of my writing. You guys keep deleting entire paragraphs from my article without any reason. You are making my article empty, rudimentary and meaningless. People look in wikipedia to READ biographies. NOT to simply look at a list of websites. Eeverybody has access to google and they can obtain access to websites themselves. What I am trying to do is to tell people about the life of Rajbeer Singh. You want to block me? GO AHEAD - I will simply open up a new account. And if you block my IP address I will simply log in from a different PC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuryaHanuman (talk • contribs) 16:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You explicitly wrote that you were "custodian" of the article and are behaving as if you are not accepting anyone else's criticisms or concerns about it. Isn't that the definition of WP:OWN? If you don't wish to follow the Wikipedia rules, including citing sources for everything you write, that's fine, you can go find some other website to use. I recommend you read WP:CIVIL so you don't dig your hole any deeper here should you wish to stay. DMacks (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Custodian means that I need to ensure the Rajbeer Singh article is complete, accurate and most importantly has substance. When someone comes in and "adds" to the work, I will be happy. However what your weirdo friend is doing is not adding to the article but deleting entire swathes of my writing. I spent a lot of time and effort on the writing. How would you feel is someone just came along and deleted all your work and replaced it with a list of web links???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuryaHanuman (talk • contribs) 16:59, 20 March 2014‎ (UTC)

You are asserting that your vision of the article is the best one. But your content is the problem itself according to others, therefore they have every right to fix what is there to make it compliant with policies if it does not. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and sometimes each of us finds that our preference does not carry the day. When that happens to me, I read what others wrote about why they did what they did, and WP:CIVILly ask for clarification if I did not understand. That's how it goes here. And if one's preference does not follow policies (again, several of us find your content is completely unacceptable by policy), that's not a debatable topic. At heart, content must follow policies, so you can either solve that problem yourself or let others solve it for you. Solving it yourself would have been a preferable solution, but you did not choose that path, so now you are blocked to prevent continued interference in the work of those who are fixing those problems. You could use this time to read WP:BLP and WP:NPOV to see why some content had to be removed, and what the requirements are for your edits if you choose to return after your block expires. DMacks (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello DMacks, I need your help, actually one user, who repeatedly reverting my edits and replacing sourced content with unsourced content on Rajbeer Singh article, and I don't know what i do?, So please help me or do something.

See reverted edit diffs 1,2,3,4. :-ChanderForYou 16:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a case of WP:OWN that is preventing him from accepting others' input. I left him a warning to that effect. I agree the content he keeps adding badly fails WP:BLP policy (and other associated guidelines), so I also reverted it with an edit-summary about that. And he's deep into WP:EW (not sure about 3RR specifically), so I made sure to mention that itself was blockable too. If it re-occurs, let me know (or else WP:AIV if I'm not around). DMacks (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

...and he reverted me (he's even re-inserting deleted images, obviously just blind WP:EW), so I filed WP:AIV. DMacks (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DMacks for help and filed this complaint, Actually i was confused that Where i filed this complaint, because last time i was filed my first complaint at WP:ANI and admin closed my discuss as wrong place. So thanks again.  :-ChanderForYou 18:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 01:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

What happened to my article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtianosity (talk • contribs) 02:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I deleted it...twice...because (as I and others wrote on your talkpage), WP:COPYVIO is forbidden. DMacks (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry man, I'm a bit new to this and didn't know we were meant to explain edits. In any case, it's worth noting that what I deleted from the "Brominated Vegetable Oil" article was sheer garbage written by someone who's obviously in the anti-BVO camp, and I was trying to introduce some chemical accuracy.

In any case, I made the minor change I wanted to and left the crap.

Rouxpurtj (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies logo.gif. 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) 16:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

If I am an IP owner, am I able to make edits on a page that is named after the IP that I have? Would it fall into the category of copyright violations? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_violations

I would like to know if I can contribute information to a page that I have lots of experience and knowledge about. Please let me know, as it seems odd that adding new relevant information that is referenced on other relevant websites about the subject is being denied.

Thanks. Dtwilkerson (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

On the internet, nobody really knows who anyone is, so your "experience and knowledge" is not considered a reliable source and cannot be used to provide verification of the material. But if the material has citations to other published sources (again, based on reliable source guidelines), then it's not just some un-knowable wikipedia editor making some claim. But you also do have to be very careful to avoid appearing to promote the topic when you're writing about it. It often leads to a better result when someone who isn't intimately involved with a subject writes about it...easier to be dispassionate and remain within the neutrality policy. DMacks (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, first ever edit. The relevant citation would be here: http://www.randomhouse.com/book/234695/horton-and-the-kwuggerbug-and-more-lost-stories-by-dr-seuss Not sure how to add that, though on this computer. Will try to figure it out when I can get home to my own computer that is far FAR more up to date.

Lincoln — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.85.17 (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, yeah. Done. DMacks (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Half-life may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• For example, the biological half-life of water in a [[human being]] is about 9 to 10 days,{{cn]} though this can be altered by behavior and various other conditions. The biological half-life of [

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You recently removed a few sentences from Tara Teng's page and did not cite any reasons in the edit summary.

Please reinstate those sentences or provide a reason why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KirkSobers (talk • contribs) 01:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I primarily removed two unacceptable images (that was a pretty important problem and the bulk of the editor's edits to that article, so I did not look more deeply for other text changes). Looking now at it, that text does not appear to have a citation for the factual claims about the subject, so that part fails WP:BLP policy. If you know of a reliable source to support it, feel free to re-add the content along with an explicit citation to that source. DMacks (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering why the "Personal Life" sub-topic I made was deleted? Is there anyway I could fix it to where it meets the standards? Please let me know. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaminium (talk • contribs) 01:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This seems like the same issue another editor asked in the immediately preceding section here. DMacks (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I see it now, I will read up on the link you provided. Thanks!Zaminium — Preceding undated comment added 02:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert on element 117. I had just learned in further reading that the IUPAC hadn't confirmed it yet, so was about to revert but you beat me to it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

the citation with embedded quote from FTC is incorrect. the FTC site says "Not all multilevel marketing plans are legitimate. If the money you make is based on your sales to the public, it may be a legitimate multilevel marketing plan. If the money you make is based on the number of people you recruit and your sales to them, it’s not. It's a pyramid scheme." ftc site ... /articles/0065-multilevel-marketing

Biznom (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I see "Not all multilevel marketing plans are legitimate. Some are pyramid schemes. It’s best not to get involved in plans where the money you make is based primarily on the number of distributors you recruit and your sales to them, rather than on your sales to people outside the plan who intend to use the products." as the second paragraph on page 1, and I see no other occurance of the phrase "Not all multilevel marketing" in the linked pdf. Please provide the exact location where you claim a different quote. DMacks (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Great to hear from you! I hope you're doing well! Sorry I have been preoccupied - death in the family, plus final week of classes, I'm sure you understand.

Amr did Skype with me and although she did make a few mistakes I think she was more on track. This project has been written up in Chemistry International and should appear in the next few weeks - so please don't delete too much! Last year I coordinated/coedited quite a few of these, working with the folk from IUPAC and reporting to Wikipedia:WikiProject Polymers what we were doing. Amr has done some more since I was last engaged with it, though. The basic idea is to make sure our articles contain IUPAC official definitions where appropriate, and can be seen as part of our old ongoing Gold Book project that Physchim62 started.

Once my grades go in I intend to get back onto this work again. (Right now I barely have time to sleep!) Would you be available to work on it with me? Regards, Walkerma (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Why you talkin shit to me, nigga? You never heard of mike McCormick the gay rights activist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenspielninja (talk • contribs) 04:17, 10 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Doesn't matter...personal knowledge is not sufficient. The burden is on you to support your claim from a published reliable source, especially when talking about a living person. But you're obviously not here to contribute to our encyclopedia to I went ahead and helped you avoid wasting more time here. DMacks (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to call your attention to it, so you might be aware, as an editor/admin that has acted there. I have placed Talk section notes for the past year or two, without any response or comment.

I will nevertheless proceed slowly, and using only the best sources. (I am a professional medicinal/org chemist with doctoral level training, and both industry and academic professional experience.)

Let me know of any concerns. I wish to make progress, but at first sign of edit warring, I will depart the article, for good. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

My POV is inclusionistic for those edits: many ionic compounds are not binary; however, many other of those can be binary as well. Your undoing appeals to me that you took a deletionistic approach. Feel free to state on your userpage that stance that can clear much misunderstanding for future edits on this collaborative online material. That's all as I shall not expect an reply, which deems to me unneceessary. Thank you. --- Mountainninja (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, adding only the category binary compound but not removing else shows an NPOV choices of categories because ionic compounds are and are not binary. and abide by WP:NPOV:

This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.

Undoing those categories or preferring not putting category binary compound is more POV in taking the sides of some ionic compounds containing more than two elements. Again as in the last comment on this talk page, "That's all as I shall not expect an reply, which deems to me unneceessary. Thank you.", the description in WP:NPOV is clear. --- Mountainninja (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

  The reason I mentioned the circle-in-polygon format vs visible alkene-alkane bonds is because the images are all in that format for one thing. I don't THINK you can describe Reaxys & Discovery studio as 'buggy'. One good example is sertraline which they don't find in the circle-in-polygon format.

It IS a big issue but I feel that people learning chemistry will be confused if the SMILES string they copy from the page doesn't match the image on the page.

Thanks for your time DVW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvwynn (talk • contribs) 13:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I want you to know that the page Karunanidhi was moved by some idiot (apologies for harsh language) to Kalaignar M Karunanidhi, because he refers to him with that "title" which means artist. Although the article's subject is widely (albeit informally) referred to by the title, he is still commonly known as simply "Karunanidhi". The page mover clearly violated WP:Honorific, and I just undid his actions. Anything wrong by me? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The original change was made by "page move", whereas your undoing was by cut'n'pasting the content back to the original location. A page-move needs to be undone by a page-move, otherwise we lose the edit-history of the content (see WP:CUTPASTE). It sometimes needs admin assistance, depending on some technical details/histories of the article titles involved. I think I got it all fixed. DMacks (talk) 06:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The introduction is just supposed to summarize the article. I think maybe only when the same information is repeated later in the article, it needs to be cited, as I have done in adding reference 5. Blackbombchu (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I re-added another note about "metastable" states. End result was that I didn't say the particle size doesn't affect solubility, just retained the different statement regarding idea about rate as well. DMacks (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm responding to a message regarding edits made to the Millsaps College entry on May 29, 2014. I work as director of communications and marketing at Millsaps, and am trying to remove some incorrect information and add additional content relevant to the college. This is my first attempt at editing this page, and I was surprised to see that my revisions were considered "disruptive." Please advise. Thanks.Millsaps1 (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability is a firm policy. You are not allowed to replace cited information with uncited information. Assuming you are who you say you are, you obviously can easily find a published reference to support, for example, an updated endowment figure, and include a citation to that in your edit. That way readers will be able to verify that the new value is correct (you obviously know how easy it is for misinformation and rumor to spread on the internet!). DMacks (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Greetings!

Wikimedia DC has yet another busy month in June. Whether you're a newcomer to Wikipedia or have years of experience, we're happy to see you come. Here's what's coming up:

• On Wednesday, June 11 from 7 to 9 PM come to the WikiSalon at the Cove co-working space. Hang out with Wikipedia enthusiasts!
• Saturday, June 14 is the Frederick County History Edit-a-Thon from 11 AM to 4 PM. Help improve local history on Wikipedia.
• The following Saturday, June 21, is the June Meetup. Dinner and drinks with Wikipedians!
• Come on Tuesday, June 24 for the Wikipedia in Your Library edit-a-thon at GWU on local and LGBT history.
• Last but not least, on Sunday, June 29 we have the Phillips Collection Edit-a-Thon in honor of the Made in America exhibit.

Wikipedia is better with friends, so why not come out to an event?

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 01:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Dmacks, have a quick look at the Natural product article, esp. the Classes (definition) section, and the lede? And then, overall impression? I'm looking to find a group interested in strategizing to rewrite the article, but want your overall opinion/perception first. THANKS. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, DMacks. You have new messages at DoubleHyphens's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just FYI, there were more accounts. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"yay"? Thanks for finding. DMacks (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

+3 months. Thanks for the heads'-up. DMacks (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't doubt you came to the right conclusion in carefully viewing the structures. The issue is rather, that however you look at "propanolamine", the title does not refer to a single substance, and so a single info box is not appropriate. Right? (If I am right that the title refers not to a single compound, but more than one, am I not right about the info box —that it should not bear a single enantiomeric structure?)

So then, to what does the title refer? When I first came I thought purely in terms of the chemistry and nomenclature—that this was a generic name for the four possible stereoisomers of this particular structure. But it is clear from the breakdown of the related articles, that this one is intended to cover the Dexatrim/Accutrim products, and therefore refers to the OTC racemic mixture (and so 2 of the 4 stereoisomers). Bottom line, I am driven to question: 2 info boxes, or 1, or none? (Two for the two stereoisomers, 1 for the racemic mixture—if there are (as I imagine) a CAS no. for the racemate, and some physical property data for it —or no info boxes at all, if the standard practice is not to have them for mixtures… Perhaps we choose to keep the article as a stub, redirecting folks to two articles on the stereoisomers, and two others for the cathine/pseudos? If so, then this article need not have one. What do you think is the best course? Your suggestions on how to proceed are welcomed (!)

In any case, the point of my earlier agreeing with the bloke indicating the 2D-3D issue, was that there was indeed a problem, between title, info box, and structures (I did not loosely closely at the two). Apologies for a vague reply, that led you stare (to point of near cross-eyedness?) at the pair of structures, in different representations, in the info box. "You're a better man than I Ginga Din." ([1]). RSVP here, if anything. Cheers. Le Prof

• PS, anything to say at natural product ([2])? Beg off if Boghog is a friend. I understand. But this issue seems pretty clear to me, and I want that to move forward. 04:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Whyd you take our favorite weather guy off his page? You should watch him on TV. It's good --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRfdbjEJXZ8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muchogustoman (talk • contribs) 21:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant what we think. DMacks (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. Whey did you remove the weather channel anchor from the weather channel wiki page? You need more proof?Muchogustoman (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. WP:BLP and WP:V are policy, as you all have been told repeatedly. DMacks (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Great, more reference and proof are all over. Thanks for helping us. Verified Weather Channel Twittwer account: https://twitter.com/TWCMattSampson Multiple links to weather channel website: http://www.weather.com/video/hurricane-season-is-here-49284 http://www.weather.com/video/10-year-old-killed-at-campground-49422 http://www.weather.com/video/mans-genius-use-for-plane-49660 The White House website even links to this guy: http://www.barackobama.com/news/science-is-winning/ (paragraph 5)

Is that enough? Can we add back now? Thank you for your kindnessMuchogustoman (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed that entire section off the "looted art" page because "looted art" has nothing to do with World War II and/or the Holocaust. People have been looting art prior to the 1930's. Art has been stolen from every civilization in every time period since time immemorial. Why one event gets to be featured in the main section of "looted art" makes no sense. If anything, the event should be placed in it's own sub-section rather than leading everyone that looks up "looted art" into believing that the only art of value that has been looted came from Jewish civilians less than a century ago. Because of all of the logical sense I have just spoken, I will now be removing that section of "looted art" once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotAnymoreYoureNot (talk • contribs) 04:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

NotAnymoreYoureNot And I reverted and warned you again. You still didn't leave an edit summary, and the material you removed clearly says that art looting has been going for hundreds of years. If you want to add older examples go ahead, but don't keep blanking this. Meters (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Coffe comes from Ethiopia, saying it comes from Arabia is a lie, that is why i changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.60.178.57 (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit-summary, "No such ref."--the reference tag you supplied is not valid, therefore your addition fails Verifiability policy (as opposed to the existing content, that does have a valid cite and therefore does meet that policy). This claim has been discussed (with references) on the article talk-page. You are welcome to start or continue discussing it there if you can cite a strong reference to support your claim. DMacks (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arsenic diiodide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sublimation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I'm sure, as you propose, it would be much better have a tag or category for the images rather than the pages where they're used. Where would one put {{Cleanup image accessibility}} on an image's Edit page? I've added a suitable note to the Talk page for Detroit and would do something about the few other articles I've added to the Category:Articles with images not understandable by color blind users, or rather, the offending images in them.

Frans Fowler (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it matters where on an image-description page one puts the template-tag. I usually see cleanup (and other "problem") tags at the top (above the description, copyright, etc. sections). Once the tag is somewhere, it is easy enough for others to use categories or backlinks to find all the affected images. DMacks (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

i had added authentic information on DPS srinagar article . But now i see that it has been removed . may i know why — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutaal98 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

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

I have not edited that article that I know of. You will have to ask whoever made the change about it. DMacks (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

What is the reason for this? Jim Norton is listed as an alumni at North Brunswick Township and Anthony Cumia is listed as notable alumni at John Glenn. There is no reason for Gregg Hughes to not be on that list. 75.131.231.238 (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I have re-added Gregg to Notable Almuni of Harborfields_High_School. Gregg falls under the Wikipedia:Notability_(people). I have added him to the list again. If he gets removed, please post specific reasons in the talk page so that it can be discussed. He is notable for the following reasons:

• Creative professionals

1. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
2. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

• Entertainers

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Peterchiapperino (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The key difference on its face is that Jim Norton (American comedian) is an actual article citing substantial and independent work in multiple other forms whereas Gregg "Opie" Hughes is just a redirect to an article about a project of which he is a part (WP:NOTINHERITED). Anthony Cumia, also only being a redirect, should be removed by that same WP:WTAF standard. Let's keep this discussion on Talk:Harborfields High School, since it's a long-running situation involving multiple editors over the years. DMacks (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Periodic Electron Configuration

You are being contacted as an authoritative reference for the Periodic Table. A new table has been submitted for review. You will find it at: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0ByxBrWNhiMlJWVkteTJSNFJscmc&usp=sharing Be sure to read the copyright notice at that site. This new periodic table has been released for posting in the public domain.

[email protected]

205.250.188.30 (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to a quick response by Eric Scerri, a couple of glaring errors have been corrected. Please ensure you are viewing the latest PDF posted to the same site.

72.2.40.155 (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

[3] Laughable but given the history of the talk page, unsurprising. How do you want to handle this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I am pleased to announce our fourth annual picnic, the Great American Wiknic, will take place at Meridian Hill Park in Washington, D.C. on Sunday, July 13 from 1 to 5 PM (rain date: July 20). We will be hanging out by the statue of Dante Alighieri, a statue that was donated to the park in 1921 as a tribute to Italian Americans. Read more about the statue on Wikipedia. If you would like to sign up for the picnic, you can do so here. When signing up, say what you’re going to bring!

July will also feature the second annual Great American Wiknic in Frederick, Maryland. This year’s Frederick picnic will take place on Sunday, July 6 at Baker Park. Sign up here for the Frederick picnic.

What else is going on in July? We have the American Chemical Society Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, July 12, dedicated to notable chemists, and our monthly WikiSalon on Wednesday, July 16.

We hope to see you at our upcoming events!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)