User talk:DMacks/Archive 28

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.

Is this where I can contact Dmacks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti.greenwash (talk • contribs) 04:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC) He/she accused me of disruptive editing and I would like to cite the reliable sources for my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti.greenwash (talk • contribs) 05:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am here. Cites are needed for any claimed fact, such as MPGe values or conversions specific to any particular product and every opinion of something being misleading. verifiability of facts and opinions and novel analysis of facts themselves is a serious problem otherwise. DMacks (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to apply an equation specified in a source to a specific example in a wikipedia article? For example, State of CHARGE June 2012 paper from The Union of Concerned Scientists points out that MPGe is different from MPGghg (greenhouse gases) as follows:

"Most drivers are familiar with the concept of miles per gal- lon (mpg), the number of miles a car can travel on a gallon of gasoline. The greater the mpg, the less fuel burned and the lower your global warming emissions. But how can such consumption be figured for electric vehicles, which don’t use gasoline? One way is by determining how many miles per gallon a gasoline- powered vehicle would need to achieve in order to match the global warming emissions of an EV. The first step in this process is to evaluate the global warming emissions that would result at the power plant from charging a vehicle with a specific amount of electricity. Then we convert this estimate into a gasoline mile-per-gallon equiva- lent—designated mpgghg, where ghg stands for greenhouse gases. If an electric vehicle has an mpgghg value equal to the mpg of a gasoline-powered vehicle, both vehicles will emit the same amounts of global warming pollutants for every mile they travel. For example, if you were to charge a typical midsize electric vehicle using electricity generated by coal-fired power plants, that vehicle would have an mpgghg of 30. In other words, the global warming emissions from driving that electric vehicle would be equivalent to the emissions from operating a gasoline vehicle with 30 mpg fuel economy over the same distance"

Is it acceptible to use the average ghg emissions per kWh for the United States as indicated in the paper, apply that to the EPA-specified electricity use of the Tesla Model S, and point out that the MPGghg thus obtained is 45, rather that the 89 MPGe specified by the EPA? This does not strike me as independent research, simply using the specific formula from the research paper to determine the MPGghg for the Model S.

Anti.greenwash 09:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti.greenwash (talk • contribs) Also, I should point out that the MPGe number on the EPA website https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/35980.shtml is under the heading "Fuel Economy" and by definition, fuel is something that chemically or nuclearly reacts to produce heat. As such, any rating under that category must relate to the economy of the fuel used to produce the electricity, rather than the quantity of the electricity itself. And as Carnot pointed out, the conversion from heat to mechanical and therefore electrical power is never 100 percent efficient. In fact, the thermodynamic inefficiency in generating electical power from fuel is about the ratio between MPGghg and MPGe. So it appears that the EPA is using the wrong MPG equivalent.

Is it acceptable to point this out? Or should the wikipedia page on fuel be changed to include elecricity as a type of fuel? Anti.greenwash 11:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti.greenwash (talk • contribs) Thinking about this more, the confusion may stem from the fact that there are multiple miles per gallong gasoline equivalents: the 2 we are discussing are MPG gasoline equivalent (combustion energy) which is used by the EPA, and MPG gasoline equivalent (greenhouse gas production) as defined in the paper I cited above.

Maybe the solution is to create separate wikipedia pages for these 2 MPGes and clarify the difference between them. Then the page for the Tesla Model S might read "EPA rates its energy consumption at 237.5 watt·hour per kilometer (38 kWh/100 mi or 24 kWh/100 km) for a combined fuel economy of 89 miles per gallon gasoline equivalent (combustion energy). Based on EPA energy use, average United States miles per gallon equivalent gasoline (greenhouse gas production) is 45."

I think it is vitally important to distinguish between these 2 MPG gasoline equivalents, because global warming is a major threat to the survival of humanity. Since the Environmental Protection Agency is presumably focused on protecting the environment from global warming, it is natural for people to assume that the MPG equivalent the EPA is using is the one relating to greenhouse gas production.

I don't know if this was an oversight by EPA or an intentional attempt to mislead the American People, but as the wikipedia pages currently exist, they give the impression that the Model S produces as much greenhouse gas per mile as a gasoline-powered car getting 89 MPG, which is completely false. No reputable scientist would claim the model S produces that much greenhouse gas per mile, instead they would use MPGe(ghg). Unless the wikipedia pages are updated to clarify this issue, I think wikipedia is further confusing the issue and encouraging behavior that worsens global warming.

Can I separate the MPGe pages, or can someone at wikipedia separate them?

Anti.greenwash 18:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti.greenwash (talk • contribs)

If there are really two definitions of MPGe that have reliable sources defining them, then I agree they should both be mentioned. I'm not sure they are different concepts enough to merit separate pages. Doing so also risks readers only finding one of them and not realizing they might be looking at the wrong meaning in a certain context, or be misled by the actual meaning of a manufacturer's or EPA's claim. But you have to be very careful not to apply your own thoughts and logic to try to interpret or refute/dispute an actual cited claim. No cite needed to apply a formula to convert something (except citing the formula or linking the basis of it), but if the result casts doubt or makes implications (that a manufacturer is lying, or that something isn't as good as other sources say), you can't do that (WP:SYNTH creating WP:NPOV problem)--you'd need a cite actually asserting that the result is valid. And you definitely can't make any direct or implied statement about anyone's motivation for action (or lack of action) without a very good cite, even if you think it's "obvious" what they're doing. DMacks (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, good. There is definitely the greenhouse gas production MPG equivalent defined in The Union of Concerned Scientists' June 2012 paper "State of CHARGE Electric Vehicles’ Global Warming Emissions and Fuel-Cost Savings across the United States". That paper is available online at the Union of Concerned Scientists' website.

The combustion energy MPG equivalent is defined by the EPA. I guess I will consider the EPA a reliable source for the purposes of this discussion.

These different MPG equivalents give numbers that are about 2x apart, so it makes a big difference which one people use. One of my concerns is that if only the EPA version is quoted in the pages for electric cars, because that version does not accurately reflect the global warming effects of the vehicle, people might not click beyond there and they won't even know that there is a very different version which is accurate regarding the global warming effects. To use the Tesla Model S example, people would read 89 MPGe and assume that it is better for the environment than a 56 MPG Toyota Prius, when the Tesla's 45 MPGghg correctly shows that it is worse for the environment than the Prius.

I am open to suggestions about how to present this to people without violating the Wikipedia rules. Also, should I just edit the pages the best I can or should I work with you or someone else to revise them?

Anti.greenwash 04:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti.greenwash (talk • contribs)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Noble gas compound, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neil Bartlett. 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) 09:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, I should point out that we don't really need to accuse the EPA of lying. Because I don't think they ever claimed their combustion energy MPGe reflects environmental effects. They might hope consumers will misunderstand their MPGe as reflecting greenhouse gas emissions.

So I think all we have to do is clearly explain that the MPGghg equivalent from the Union of Concerned Scientists is the one reflecting environmental effects. All I want is for consumers to be properly informed so they can make decisions.

Anti.greenwash 19:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti.greenwash (talk • contribs)

Hi DMacks, About 3/4 of my Uup paragraph is mathematics. It is not speculative; it is not mere inference nor speculation. Presented by me are observable and accurate mathematics calculations. Further, Uup is at the most dense part of the Periodic Table. Do you not understand what residing at the dense end of the Periodic Table means, particularly when an unusually large number of Neutrons are part of the atomic structure?

If you disagree with the Mathematics, please present your argument or arguments.

In terms of the ultra high Neutron content of Uup-299, it would be likely found re the circumstances linked to in my Uup content, if you even vaguely bothered to read those linked Wikipedia pages. There is no evidence at all you read my linked pages, i.e. citations, particularly considering how so always quickly you delete my data and my INFORMATION-FILLED paragraph - with my cross-references(sources) to other existing Wikipedia pages.

A Roche lobe with spun-off highly-neutron intense masses would be formed off a highly rotating Neutron star, in any of the scenarios listed. You seem to want to deny the high Neutron content of Uup-299 generally, as well.

If you even bothered to look at the Golden Ratio - it is wholly "non-coincidental" - although you seemed to object to that phrase. 1.6 is a Golden Ratio. Deny it all you want, delete the paragraph I inserted all you want, but the 1.6 ratio does not go away.

Please: If 8 divided by 5 does not equal 1.6, cite your source.

Further, my additional Uup-299 text helps put the heavy end of the Periodic Table into better perspective for all people, including those who may not possess a Ph.D. in Uup.

Your deletion of the paragraph, please forgive me, is highly reminiscent of book burning or even text book chapter-tear-outs - which also occurred, most frequently in a public forum or public venue.

You can attempt to squelch and censor math and science all you want, but the facts speak for themselves. The facts should be presented and allowed to be read, not burned away. The science and math are not going away.

Uup's heaviest known isotope ²⁹⁹Uup has 115 protons plus 184 neutrons in its nucleus. It would be the most dense of all its stable isotopes. Its N:Z ratio or # neutrons(184) divided by # protons(115) = 1.6 - closely approximates mathematics and architecture's Golden Ratio. Note that 115P+184N=299. Furthermore, 299 divided by 184 = 1.625 ~ 1.6 ditto N:Z ratio. Again, 1.6 very closely approaches mathematic's golden ratio and reduces to 8 neutrons for every 5 protons in a highly symmetric, stable, 3-D proton-pentagon-based lattice-work nucleic pattern. As mathematical proof of the 8N:5P golden ratio 3-D lattice symmetry in ²⁹⁹Uup and a theoretically stable isotope: 184÷8 and 115÷5 both equate to 23 lattice sets / nuclear crystal groups. The highly dense matter and symmetrical nuclear arrangement likely generates extenuated magnetic and electrical properties within and surrounding multiple ²⁹⁹Uup atoms collectively also due to the high electron cloud density. The isotope could well be a product of a binary - pulsar, supernova or binary spinning neutron star with a Roche lobe where ²⁹⁹Uup could easily be a spin-off byproduct of ultra dense, high velocity neutron star derived matter. Using Einstein's equation: Energy = Mass times Speed of light squared ²⁹⁹Uup has huge quantities of energy stored within its mass.

Best regards. LongTermWikiUser (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

20:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

This guy even changed a quotation. I'm going to be away, could you keep an eye on him? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 05:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure. DMacks (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Great effort! Vinod 11:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi !

You say : en (and many other languages) have separate aromaticity and aromatic compound pages,

but Aromatic compound redirects to Aromaticity ... that's what confused me :)

Tarap (talk) 03:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for finding a missing interwiki link! The situation here is indeed confusing because of redirects. Here on en.wp, aromatic compound is a redirect that is identified as a placeholder for a future actual article (not purely a synonym), and the redirect has interwiki links. The de.wp site is a good example I check for science articles, and they do have separate actual articles for both. Wikidata requires a 1:1 mapping among languages (is why you could not add both interwiki links that way, if you had tried), and explicit interwiki links that break that are confusing because one cannot backtrack after following them. Interwiki links for redirects are similarly confusing in a backtracking sense. So I guess we're stuck having multiple articles on some sites, and therefore either interwiki links for redirects or minimal actual stubs on others, to keep wikidata happy. DMacks (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism still goes on. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done. thanks! DMacks (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi DMacks,

I had modified the content of a page that i had recently created, however it was deleted on account of ambiguous promotion. However, i just wish to create a wiki page, that is just informational, nothing promotional. Please suggest how can i do so?

Varshalath (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC) varshaVarshalath (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Your first article is a good outline of the process. But overall, you'll need to rely mostly on indepedent sources rather than a company's own website. For example, is there any company that doesn't claim that it is the first, most significant, and/or has groundbreaking contribution to its sector? That's actually key to demonstrating that the company merits an article at all...that it meets the guideline for corporate notability. It seems like you know a lot about this company; are you affiliated with it in some way? DMacks (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

20:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello DMacks, I have started editing Wikipedia from few days now. I have noticed that this User:ArmaanShlok is continuosly removing contents and vandalising the article Qubool Hai without explaining. I have also noticed that when i reverted the edits of ArmaanShlok the User:Bobsques123 also reverted edits contributed by me without explanation, I think that these two accounts are handled by the same person like sockpuppetry I guess as I have read some rules on wikipedia before I started editing. I request you to pay attention to this. To verify check revision history of Qubool Hai Regards, ABCDEinfinity (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Hong Kong Dork just found a new target, buster. See the history of TheGracefulSlick's talkpage for what will happen to you now.

Yours sincerely, spb. 185.69.144.15 (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

21:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

there's no hindki people are found in afghanistan or anywhere it is hoax article and there are no sources are found about hindki kindly delete this articleRaj Gujjar•talk —Preceding undated comment added 05:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Article has cites, first one I randomly checked does support the existence of this topic. DMacks (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the typo "drsinhole" in File:The graph of the radius function r of the "Ellis" drsinhole.pdf. I agree that the file should be deleted.

(This a duplicate of the message I wrote earlier that mistakenly wound up under the headline "force".)

Turningwoodintomarble (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! I removed the dup message. PDF is not really a good format here, maybe SVG or PNG? I can probably extract them from the PDF if you no longer have the orginal. DMacks (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

In f= ma we write 'k' as constant but in F=GMm/r^2 we write 'G' as constant? Why? B viper BHATT (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand your question. Are you asking why there is a constant? Why it is a different letter? Why it is a different value? DMacks (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

please merge hindki into Hindko People actually these are only one ethnic people and Hindki is a hoax please delete itRaj Gujjar•talk 08:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

No. It is not established that Hindki is a hoax. You will need to provide reliable sources and have an article talkpage discussion first. DMacks (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Just doing what LivingGuildpact was supposed to do. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

20:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey Dmacks, pleasure to meet.

I made some changes to a page titled Yisroel Belsky, because I thought they were zeroing in unduly on an involvement he had with a sexual abuse controversy. In my very first edit on this great Wikipedia, i seem to have gone too far. I received a message that my meddling had been labelled as disruptive editing, so here i am now, reaching out to you.

Can we air our views and try to find some type of understanding?

Looking forward,

           Cpjwiki (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good thing to discuss on Talk:Yisroel Belsky. It relates to the article, so best to centralize the discussion in a place closely tied to it so everyone can find it. If you go there, you can see that the topic has already been discussed recently. DMacks (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello. You've undone a few of my edits to the Czech Republic page. This is understandable, considering that they would've been wrong just last week. But on May 2nd, the Czech Republic officially adopted the shorthand name "Czechia," and I was hoping to change the Wikipedia page to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immensepieguy (talk • contribs) 22:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello Immensepieguy. There is extensive discussion of this issue on the article's talk page. The bottom line is that Wikipedia uses the common name for an article, and Czechia is not yet the common English name for the Czech Republic.--Mojo Hand (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, exactly as User:Mojo Hand said. DMacks (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

23:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

hey man, im real sorry about the whole editing thing. i just wanted to update the picture bc the other one was getting kinda old. i hope we are cool.

-connerfivesos Connerfivesos (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

No worries! DMacks (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I believe you make a mistake in reverting my edit(s). The phrase I removed in the lead was worded in a way consistent with it being a proven fact, however; it is an opinion. It's not even a hypothesis, as there is no falsifiable null hypothesis. It cannot be proven as a fact within any sensible time period. The wording should be consistent with it being an opinion, not presented as if it were proven fact, even if it is a majority opinion. There are many actual facts regarding Carbon Dioxide. Since that topic is covered in detail in the article body, does the page lead even need to include an opinion? As for the citation needed tag that you remarked was pretty basic science; you missed the point: anything can be killed with high enough environmental levels of anything. That is pretty basic science. Should all articles about all substances have such statements? Obviously not. Therefore; an unqualified article statement to that effect is just inane unless there's a citation that demonstrates what constitutes minimal sufficiently high enough levels, for which pests, and how much time of exposure is required at said minimal levels. 173.174.80.138 (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frost diagram, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free energy. 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) 09:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

16:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

Regarding this revert: Article Periodic table says there are 15 lanthanides and 15 actinides to be part of group 3. That is regular 18 columns (including group 3) plus 15 lanthanides (and 15 actinides below), not 14. (One lanthanide and one actinide below it in group 3 are also lanthanides/actinides.)

OK, you corrected back from 14 to 15.

Regarding revert on the main article:

• I lowered two big tables to separate Note because it is not being properly shown on small devices/sreens and cannot be rendered on some other Wikipedias either as <ref> group or {{refn}} or other footnote making procedure.
• I did not break consistency as colour was already used, so I changed color in the first image displayed.
• I added external links and separated Further reading from Cited bibliography for which it will be necessary to use {{harvnb}} or similar template for backrefs.
• I changed table style so it is same as in article on .sr I've written there because it is not displaying properly some tables as on .en. Etc.
• I "connected" broken references because sections are not too big and there was no overreferencing.
• I replaced "background-color: gainsboro" with "background:gainsboro;" and did little clean-up.

What do you mean by "breaking WP:ENGVAR" and "grammar mess"?

Can I make my edits again one-by-one? --Obsuser (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the main article:

• EN.WP is solely for EN.WP. If the content is pasted somewhere else and displays poorly there, then it's a problem there. But if it displays poorly on the EN.WP article, that's something that should be fixed.
• When the article passed WP:FA, it was US-English. It has likely accumulated some inconsistencies since then. Thanks for noticing them! But we should use the longer-standing precedent (per WP:ENGVAR) for resolving them.
• It's certainly reasonable to create subsections of cited refs, using the minimal changes in format necessary to accomplish it.
• Making something look like something else you chose to do on some other language's site is not itself a very good reason for changing seeming long-standing formatting here. Periodic table formatting has a long and contentious history on EN.WP--you should get consensus on a relevant talkpage before changing it. Be sure to state exactly what effect you are trying to create.
• I don't know what you mean by "connecting" references. I do see a lot of conversions from multiline to single/inline template syntax. There's currently consensus *not* to make those sorts of changes in general because it's usually just editorial preference and (as I noted) makes it hard to read the WP:DIFFs to see what other content changes are happening. WP:CITEVAR addresses this idea, as well as retaining the general formatting.
• Simple CSS parameter modernization is definitely a good idea. That's a good edit to make by iteslf. Non-contentious, and focused on a single type of change.

Read WP:ENGVAR to see what it means. It is the guideline related to one of the bullet-points you menioned:) The "grammar mess" is in relation to where you wrote "Moseley (wrongly) predicted in 1913 that the only missing elements between aluminum (Z=13) and gold (Z=79) were Z = 43, 61, 72 and 75; however, these were all later discovered." You say "however", but the latter statement exactly does' support the former's predictions of these elements existing. The sentence previously used "which", which seems like a more correct modifier relationship of the ideas. And it's not clear what was "wrongly" predicted, since the sentence makes several claims. DMacks (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• This is how two tables from note 15 display in a small preview box: [41]. Should I exclude them because of this and because many other Wikipedias will not be able at all to display tables within {{refn etc.?
• Article used "colour" which is not US-English form but I did check for both "color" and "colour" and saw many "color"s but only in wikicode. "Colour" was used in text. Never mind. This can be easily corrected.
• Yes, then I can get that part back and use {{harvnb}} for each such reference.
• Basically, the biggest change was moving of that note 15. If other Wikipedia wants same article, both articles can be adapted to fit needs of each other.
• I mean writing them in the same line. Someone formats references in multiple lines and indents them but if it takes five lines and section itself has three lines – it doesn't seem nice.
• This can be changed too then, OK...

Aren't there 65 or how many elements between aluminum (Z=13) and gold (Z=79)? He predicted that only missing elements between element 13 and element 79 were elements 43, 61, 72 and 75. These four were discovered but are not only "missing" (I don't even know what does "missing" imply/mean here). Sentence is confusing. I don't get it... --Obsuser (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like User:Sandbh is fixing up several of the problems/confusions you noticed. Regarding the popup-preview display, that sounds like something to discuss on the article's talkpage. It might be a symptom of some more general issue (WP layout styles?) or there might be a standard way of doing it. Or maybe even having it publicly mentioned would help others understand the change and use it to fix other articles. DMacks (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I created Alex's Wikipedia so you can't tell me what to do, DMacks, if you continued editing Alex, then I will make you banned from editing. I CREATED ALEX'S WIKIPEDIA SO SHUT UP. Alex's Wikipedia is mine, I create it, I find all the sources, photos and everything, don't tell me what I should do, cause I made Alex's Wikipedia.

Thanks, From Skyhighwolf to DMacks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyhighwolf (talk • contribs) 07:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. I predict your time here will be short if you don't quickly recognize that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. DMacks (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

18:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. LavaBaron (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

16:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

We hope you enjoy the newest issue of the Education Newsletter.--Sailesh Patnaik (Distribution leader) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

20:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi DMacks Thanks for simplifying and clarifying the carbocyclic nucleoside article. However some errors have inadvertently occurred in the text on Purine carbocyclic nucleosides in this process. Now I have time I have corrected these, [please note: Abacavir, is not a guanosine analog ( the same way as adenosine is not an inosine analog). Abacavir is chiral, and as the monophosphate is a prodrug of the monophosphate of the (-) enantiomer of carbovir, not racemic (±)-carbovir. Also abacavir is not a competitive inhibitor of the natural substrate guanosine but is converted intracellularly to the triphosphate of (-)carbovir which is a competitive inhibitor guanosine triphosphate.] Thanks also for pointing out the need for using Haworth projections in drawing these structures. I have followed your lead and started to correct the remaining figures (see the synthetic scheme). From my errors you can see I am still new to many aspects of WikiP. I will put forward the incorrect structures for deletion as soon as I have time. Alandb (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

In reply to my change, you wrote: "Changes that do not affect traits are not selected for/against. Do not change a cited def without an even better cite. "

While the first point is correct, it is not relevant because the statement I modified is about the term evolution, not selection.

To your second point, my change makes the statement more consistent with the citation that is currently there. So I should not need to provide a better citation.Emoneill (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, now I see your point. But given natural selection only affects the evolution of heritable things, it doesn't matter what other genetic variations might be occuring (the broader definition of "evolution" to are preferring, one of several mentioned in the source). Please take it to the talkpage to get further input on which definition is relevant in this context (or how to more clearly word that only some aspects of the definition are affected, etc.). DMacks (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I attempted to fix, but, it appears I did not do it quite right. I noticed you are the one who blocked the vandal account responsible; could you possibly check to see if I cleaned it up right? Jersey John (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like I got most of them, and a few other editors got the rest. Thanks for noticing, working on fixing, and alerting us! DMacks (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you mind unprotecting? It's been full-protected almost a year, and as a disambiguation page, it's not a place where sneaky vandalism is really possible. Nyttend (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The extent and insideousness of the problem was quite severe, and aspects of it are still occuring on pages that are less-protected, so I do not feel comfortable unprotecting it. Let me know what you'd like to see on it and I'll make edits. Or let me know when, and I'll lower to semi temporarily so you can do it. DMacks (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If you think it necessary, that's fine. I encountered it here, although with several other articles. My goal was basically to get actual articles protected unless there were good reason to keep it, but since you think there's good reason, I won't have any further input. It's not like I'm familiar with the situation at all. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking up on these sorts of things! DMacks (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. With another situation, protected nearly two years ago, the protecting admin had forgotten about it, so she reduced protection. I figured I'd check around; it's good if we reduce unnecessary protection and good if we confirm that protection's still needed, and of course it's better if I ask you instead of unprotecting by myself without checking. Nyttend (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

18:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the HSAB theory page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ethyl cyanoacetate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Methylene. 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) 09:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Metaphit & Fourphit: and phencyclidine, Seriously, these are basically the same compounds, what is original research about it? Nagelfar (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

"Metaphit (an isomer of Fourphit containing the isothiocyanate moiety at the meta position of the aromatic ring)" Nagelfar (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi DMacks. I have to say that I agree with Nagelfar on this one. Metaphit and fourphit are not only structurally related as isocyanate derivatives of phencyclidine, but the references also describe them as being synthetisized and studied for essentially the same purpose. Linking the two articles to each other in their "see also" sections seems reasonable to me. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

With that used as a cited ref, I fully support including a sentence of article content (or even annotation for seealso). That way we're not simply implying "structurally related..." based on our own analysis. Lack of refs is my major concern with lots of these interlinking of biochemically related substances. DMacks (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. My initial idea was that fourphit was perhaps too scarcely referenced to deserve its own page and thus my original inclusion of its image as an after thought to metaphit, I thought this was your beef with the edit so I went ahead and made fourphit and then linked it as 'see also', since it isn't MoS to cite a See Also instance when those refs are on the linked page, perhaps this was the worry that may intentions were synthesis; but I was only trying to be as minimal as it was notable and I apologize. Assume good faith. Also perhaps at first the name seemed silly; fourphit = forfeit instead of para; but that's the chemist's sense of humOR not mine. Regards, Nagelfar (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks great. Indeed chemists have...interesting...senses of humor. Cheers! 13:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)