User talk:DMacks/Archive 31

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.

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You tiredlessly work hard everyday! Well done! Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand why my page was deleted, it was not finished!

I only spent 30 minutes on it, I still need to complete the page and it has been deleted by you.

Could I request the original copy back or time has been wasted.

Thanks,

Chino — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinoj10 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the content and subject, I'm not sure a viable page is possible at this time. Setting aside WP:AUTOBIOG concerns, I cannot find any notability. No problem for me to revive it to let you continue working, but as you say, no sense wasting time if it won't lead to an article at this point. Please let me know a few reliable sources to support notability... DMacks (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi DMacks. Would you mind taking a look at Yukti Kapoor? An article of the same name has been previously deleted three times before and I think this might be another re-creation. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Good eye! I deleted it for several reasons. DMacks (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello DMacks, It sound like sock puppetry going on please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jschauhan. Thank you – GSS (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

20:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Home • Subscribe • Archives • Newsroom - The newsletter team 18:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello DMacks: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Doug Weller talk 15:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Hi DMacks. I noticed that User talk:DMacks/Archive 30#Begging - now locked - students cannot complete their university assignment has been archived without a further response from CrimUser. Assuming this is one of the student edits CrimUser is referring to, I am thinking about removing it because it does not seem to be much of an improvement although it seems in to have been made in good faith. There is already a section covering the US in Begging#Legal restrictions and adding this much detail about one particular state to that seems out of place. Of course, I should probably take this to Talk:Begging, but though I'd ask here since you seem to have already been discussing it. Any suggestions on how to best proceed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to edit in good faith for any standard reason of policy or editorial concern. II appreciate both your checking with previous discussions and assuming others are likewise here in good faith. I'm not going to take an editorial position here because I've been involved administratively, but Iwould be happy to provide any admin assistance, discussion-moderation, etc if anyone is interested. Let me know what I can do to help. DMacks (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. To be honest, part of my concern was that a student may have added this in order to simply get a grade from their teacher. This type of editing is something which is being discussed at WP:ENB in more general terms, but I didn't really want my boldness to impact some kid's final grade. I do, however, feel the content while supported by numerous sources, probably is too detailed for that particular article (perhaps it is more suited for an article "Begging in Missouri" or "Begging in the United States"), so I am going to start a discussion about it on the article's talk page to see what others think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, "For someone's grade" is not an acceptable basis for any editorial decision about article content. DMacks (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello again....I took the time to respond yesterday before I took a look at the link you provided regarding keeping edits neutral and having read the guidlines, I do not believe I violated any of the guidelines but only provided verifiable documented info within the edits without any personal opinion or bias. I also would go as far as saying what I wrote was 100% protected by our 1st amendment right of Freedom of Speech and that having rules against writing my own personal opinion, even tho I did not provide one, would seem to violate our right to freedom of speech as long as no false, obsene, slanderous, libelous, fighting words with the intent to provoke harm and or illegal activity were to used. Such censorship I believe likely would be found by the Supreme Court to be a violation of my right to freedom of speech, even if I had provided an opinion, that say, I believe that this ionization alarm fraud was and continues to be negligent homicide and or even murder due to the fact the manufactures knowingly sell these devices after many lawsuits that found them responsible for death and injuries due to these dangerous devices being sold without a warning label that alerts consumers that death and severe burn injuries may occur due to the inability of ionization alarms to sound alarm in presence if smoldering smoke. In 2001 UL was sued along with BRK / First Alert for not disclosing the dangers of ionization alarms. If you do your due diligence and watch videos referenced within the edits and consider my 1st amendment right to freedom of speech and that I did not violate that right as mentioned above, can you in good conscience not repost the edits you deleted.based on the opinion the edits were not neutral enough ? Please send all the edits to my email I provided when I signed up for my wikipedia account if you still decide to not repost them and if possible specify which parts of edits exactly you consider not neutral.

Regards Dennis Fox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis Fox (talk • contribs) 13:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Dmacks

You evidently deleted my edits stating they did not seem neutral. The edits contain verifiable information that are not disputed with links to news stories and other videos all supporting the info provided. Have you taken a look at the proof or just deleting the edits based on your opinion they do not seem neutral ? There is no way to water this ionization fraud down to make it neutral and people have the right to know that the smoke alarms on most homes have resulted in many deaths and injuries over last 50 years and will continue to do so unless public awareness is create yo inform the public. Please take a look at the nees videos and aquarium test video at www.smokealatmsafety.org and let me know if I can repost the info. 3rd degree burns and smoke inhalation of people who buy ionization alarms thinking these devices will wake them up in time to evacuate is plain wrong and not a subject that can be neutalized nor should be. People need to know.

Regards Dennis Fox Dennis Fox (talk) 08:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It appears too WP:FRINGE for inclusion at this point. As I noted on your talk page, Wikipedia is not a place for soapboxing or "getting the word out" no matter how important the causes. It is not about hiding anything, but just the nature of this site and its policies and guidelines to be conservative about reporting nonmainstream ideas. And posting the same content across so many pages makes it seem even less "encyclopedic", where each article is focused on a certain topic,and more like you are *just* trying to romper this idea. DMacks (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

With that said DMacks ...how is wikipedia not infringing upon the right to freedom of speech with these guidelines and policies. I see this as infringing upon my rights having not presented any info that was either slanderous or libelous or obscene or that included harmful intent as I mentioned above but seems to have been ignored in your response. I am left to ponder how I can make the edits more neutral subject to your opinion of what neutral means it would seem. I have posted this information on Facebook,Twitter and Linkedin without any issues or censorship and of over 2975 Facebook friends who received the message, many liked and shared the info with friends, family and relatives because they feel it is useful information which over 95℅ of people are unaware of. I find wikipedia guidlines and policies not only unconstitutional but burdensome as I now need to figure out an alternative edit that will likely be a watered down version of the truth that is subject to your opinion of how it should be written. I will see what I can do but if the edits are removed yet again I will not use wikipedia again and likely consider filing a lawsuit to defend my right to freedom of speech, which in my opinion, wikipedia needs to seriously reconsider in relation to their guidlines and policies.

WP:PRESERVE has nothing to do with preserving a status quo; WP:PRESERVE is a fundamental Wikipedia policy that specifies an affirmative responsibility to preserve encyclopedic content. How is possible that as an admin you would so clearly misunderstand a fundamental core element of Wikipedia's editing policy? Alansohn (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, I mis-used it. summarized. It doesn't conflict with that sense of "preserve", but it does with the whole explanation there, talking about "appropriate content." (my emphasis). Multiple other policies and guidelines make it uncertain or doubtful if that content is "appropriate". For example, a quick read of the history and talkpage says that Wikipedia:Consensus is against it, and it also does not have any citation therefore BLP policy also comes into play. The Thanks for alerting me to my conflating lay-language with WP policy, and allowing me to further/correctly support my undoing of your edit. DMacks (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

DMacks,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

I will admit to spending some extra time reading this over. Wanted to make sure that I was not missing any esoteric glassy meaning. :-) Happy to be of service!Bobdog54 (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I see that you've protected this page. I posted it at WP:RFPP earlier today and was denied. I'm just curious why you've gone ahead and done it anyway. (please tag me in your reply) Thanks, †dismas†|^(talk) 00:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dismas: I don't usually read RFPP; I did this on my own, as I have that specific page watchlisted. That article has a history of vandalism (and BLP making that an even more serious concern), some of which didn't seem to be caught quite promptly. And it has been protected multiple times in the past (this is the sixth in the past less-than-two-years). Looking at your RFPP and @Ad Orientem:'s decline of it now, I disagree that it is just one IP causing the problem. And it had been under PC1 protection up until a month ago. It seemed PC1 was preventing lots of bad edits from becoming public. But I only saw a single good IP edit in the past few months (approved via PC but would have been blocked by semi). That didn't seem to outweigh the ongoing cost of good-faith editors having to keep cleaning up, so I went semi instead of PC1. Ad Orientem, please let me know if you still feel no-protection is best, or maybe more PC1. DMacks (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I am rather disappointed by your reverts on Kamerlingh Onnes (and supraconductivity) and Fresnel. I am French, for me it is very difficult to express myself in English. This is also a reason why I seem to make "borderline refspam", because I do not dare to write in the core of the pages. But I am a rather appreciated contributor in history of science and other topics on Wikipedia (in French) since 2005. I am a French academic, and BibNum is a public site (Ministry of Education), for which we try to have some budgets to make the English translations of a small part of our analysis (in total 160 analysis over 8 years) - the best ones obviously. To come to the point : I really think that the BibNum text analysis bring something more to the Wikipedia page : for example, the page dedicated to Kamerlingh Onnes describes globally his process, but the analysis really gives the details of the various experiments, and the material used, as well as the perspective to current science (this is the 'editorial line' of BibNum) . It is a good and valuable source regarding history of science (what I teach at the University) for Wikipedia (English or French) readers, namely researchers, university teachers, licence and master students, college teachers. I would really appreciate if you can reconsider these recent reverts, even if I am not totally aware of the specific WP:en rules. Hoping to have possibly convinced you, Sincerely, --Arrakis (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that some of these can be good resources. I am also an academic, and love to see what materials other academics have assembled. But I think they were being over-used. When you added the same link to many different articles, I no longer saw how it could be a good resource for all of them. If we have an article about a person and also separate articles about some of his major works. It seems like a specific resource would be appropriate at one or the other—either it covers lots of areas of the person's life or work generally, or it focuses mainly on one. That is why I left some of them in place—the most specific article that seemed relevant. If instead, it is a single giant PDF that tries to be complete in both areas, then that I think is not as useful because it would be too unwieldy. Instead, it might be broken into separate (or at least separately linkable) pages so that external users can more easily find what is on-topic. DMacks (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

For whatever reason, I am reading and writing on amine basicity. The striking aspect to me, at least according to March's multi-edition tome on organic chem, is that solvation by water dominates the measured basicity of amines. So all this stuff we teach (and edit on) about the basicity of PhNH2 being controlled by delocalization is slightly suspect, such mesomeric effects are subsidiary to solvation. If you have any insights on the matter, let me know, because I fear that I am reversing a lot of assumptions. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I kindly request my page information on the article Kudzai Kofa which you incosiderately removed. Iqperson (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it the same as what you have at Draft:Kudzai Kofa? For the record, this perso does not appear to meet WP:BIO at this point, which means it is not permissible to have an article at this point. DMacks (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I apologise for my crazy behaviour. I thought you had no grouds to remove my article but now i see the error of my way. I again ask for an apology for the words which i rudely said — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqperson (talk • contribs) 19:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Appology accepted. DMacks (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

... Evlekis (check their edit on User talk:Gogo Dodo), so talk page access will need to be removed. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Had already done so as you were posting this:) Thanks for the note though...this is not one of the sockfarms I regularly track. DMacks (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

19:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw her previous data that she is born in 1976, not 1973, it must be a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.159.32.18 (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Have a look at this website, it's all written here, http://movie.kankan.com/person/libingbing/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.159.32.18 (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

dmacks, I only know my writing style to be disagreeable or difficult to understand. So, how am I to know your objections to be constructive?

And I don't know believing criticism from others, without understanding their reasoning, to be good judgement either. Because, you haven't given me the reason why you believe them. So, how am I supposed to be believe you? Are you trying to persuade someone else?

Can you be more specific? Because, I don't know citing objection to non standard writing is meaningful. And, I don't see how you're improving me. Do you have something meaningful that I can understand to change? nic p (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

23:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, DMacks. Hexamethylbenzene, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

20:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi DMacks, since we are collaborating, I was thinking it might be helpful to exchange some background. My research was organometallic chemistry and catalysis. Are you an organic chemist, by any chance? I noted your recent edit comment on the Ru complexes and I see you point on the electrons are the bond, but the models in organometallics do tend to use the idea of a vacant orbital bonding to a π system, which prompted me to wonder about your area of interest.  :) EdChem (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Trifluoroperacetic acid – as you've probably noticed, I have expanded the content and left the references you sought in hidden text in that section, for when you get a chance to look at it. Other than that coal-related material, is there anything else you think we need to add? I'm wondering about putting it up for GA after the DYK is done. I'm also looking to expand the DYK to have a second bolded article, on the chemist who pioneered it as a laboratory reagent. I've done the QPQ and have another review up my sleeve, to use for either the extra article or for the hexamethylbenzene nomination. On the replacement images, I see you have done some (many thanks), would it help if I was to list (here, say) the other ones I think particularly need replacing? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't think of anything I'd like to add other than the novel oxidative cleavage mentioned in the coal. That whose aspect was something I didn't even know about until I started looking for something else unrelated:) Yes, please let me know which images to prioritize for replacement. Thanks for following up with deletion of the images as they get replaced (as noted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 23#File:Dimethylacetylene cyclotrimerisation with titanium tetrachloride catalyst.jpg. It does seem headed to GA territory. These article statuses are something with which I have little experience, none of it (until now:) recent and some of it not quite pleasant. DMacks (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear DMacks,

In the interest of balance and fairness, I would suggest that this article either has no mention of manufacturers, or mentions all of the manufacturers of the type of instrumentation, involved in the technique of ion chromatography.

Were I to place another photograph of an IonQuest ion chromatography system, would you have objections? Khanom (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting your business, it's the business of being an encyclopedia. "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter" is the policy. So just one more image, yet another generic looking system the same as others, is not going to be allowed. And certainly not just because you want your company's included. But including an image or two is allowed (and expected) because it illustrates the topic. Having no images would not accomplish that. DMacks (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear DMacks,

Thank you for your response. In respect to conflict of interest, why are images of some manufacturers' models included and named on the ion chromatography page. The only persons, who would add those images would be end-users, contract laboratories, manufacturers, journalists etc. They all have monetary associations. Ion Chromatography is hardly a subject of mass interest, everyone in this narrow niche, is bound to have some form of monetary association. Hence in the interest of fairness and the avoidance of conflict of interest, should these images and their names be removed, or should corresponding images and names from other manufacturers be included? Let's have a level paying field.Khanom (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

You're doing a great job demonstrating lack of faith in others' editorial motives, a behavior that is against wikipedia policy (WP:AGF), and readers' presumed interests (if nobody cares, than why do you?). Or maybe merely reflecting your own apparent inability to stop trying to promote your company (WP:COI). Stop it. DMacks (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Responding to a perfectly reasonable and polite editorial question, with an insult, is hardly a wikipedia policy. Are you suggesting that one should have faith in you, when you refuse to answer a civil question. On the point of caring, Ion Chromatography is a specialist subject area. If an article on the subject is written, please make it fair, accurate, balanced and non-commercial. Are you trying to imply that seeking an answer from an editor is against wikipedia policy? Khanom (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I answered the editorial question several times in several ways. But here it is again: You are wrong. Wikipedia 'fair' does not mean 'every company represented equally'. Wikipedia 'use of image' does not mean 'commercial endorsement'. You have no idea what the background of editors might be.' See WP:NPOV and WP:CORP, among others. If you choose to ignore that and keep harping on your ideas of "fair" and thinking that inclusion of a picture is some sort of commercial endorsement, that's up to you. But you're wasting your time continuing it here. DMacks (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

18:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please don't make me instruction............ok Zeeshan saoud lakhwaira (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

My name is Mary Anne Loughlin, and I was an anchor at CNN from 1981 to 1991. When I noticed that my name was missing from the list of former CNN anchors, I added it. Why did you remove it? Thank you. You may reach me at [email protected]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleolion (talk • contribs) 23:49, 4 February 2017 (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 Trifluoroperacetic acid page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help) and a broken reference name (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) 00:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

19:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you miss the {{keep local}} template or are you deliberately disrespecting it? SpinningSpark 12:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Missed it, thanks for half-AGF'ing. Having it shadow commons makes it harder to use the commons image if someone wants it. Doesn't really matter to me about keeping it local for whatever reason, but given it's not identical to the commons one, why does it need to be the same name? DMacks (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Bot bug-tracking at User talk:Ramaksoud2000#Local copies to be kept. DMacks (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing. And for raising the bug report. SpinningSpark 15:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Any idea what's up with the latest edits? Lots of blocked and new editors floating around. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Long-term target for various partisan/ethnic feelings, hit'n'run. But this particular set of articles I recognize as a favorite of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Najaf ali bhayo. I don't recognize Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buddhakahika, but apparently someone else who watches that article does. DMacks (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sher Aziz. DMacks (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2017 (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 GFS Chemicals page, your edit caused a cite 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) 00:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I have noticed you are making disruptive chnages
Twice you have deleted the list of Managing Directors from the article
please stop making such type of edites.

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 03:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:V is policy. It is not cited. WP:NOTDIR is a standard guideline. This level of detail of history is of miniscule/no encyclopediac value. DMacks (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

18:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Could you please release John Dalton from semi permanent protection? It's been locked for 7 years! No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I knocked it down to pending-changes. Let's see how it goes... DMacks (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence on the National fire Protection Association page and your attempts to keep copyright material off. However, you keep removing text that we are placing on the page ourselves (we own the copyright) as we are the National Fire Protection Association. I have submitted the required forms and permissions to Wikipedia and the ticket number I reference on our talk conversation and in the page's talk history (which I see you have removed) is the formal process Wikipedia provides to demonstrate to people like you that we are following correct procedures. Please stop removing our cited, accurate, and copyright use granted text in the summary of the page with your incorrect, uncited copy. We appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.162.66 (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I can clearly see that you are merely here to promote your organization and that you actually aren't following the process. So I've blocked you. DMacks (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

DeMarcus Cousins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) High rate of vandalism - up to several per minute. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Bongwarrior got it. DMacks (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

19:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

On 24 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hexamethylbenzene, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the pyramidal structure of the hexamethylbenzene dication (pictured) has a central carbon atom bonded to an "unprecedented" six other carbon atoms? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hexamethylbenzene. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hexamethylbenzene), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For your elegant template that solves a long standing table formatting problem. Boghog (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

On 27 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Trifluoroperacetic acid, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the potentially explosive trifluoroperacetic acid is not commercially available, yet can be quickly prepared in three different ways using hydrogen peroxide? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Trifluoroperacetic acid), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

19:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. Be sure to check out the full version, and past editions. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team!

We hope you enjoy this issue of the Education Newsletter.-- Sailesh Patnaik using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)