User talk:DMacks/Archive 49

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.

Dear DMacks,

The article was published in Nature Communications the most important scientific journal in the world. This work on electronegativity actually is the most downloaded and by editor of Nature Communications was considered the best article for inorganic and general chemistry. There is nothing to promote simply to add the new scale that defeated the Pauling scale which it is full of errors. So, please put back my changing.

Best, Christian.

While the limitations of the Pauling and other scales are well-known, it's not enough for someone to publish a majorly new approach in a major journal. Nature Communications does not seem to have nearly as high an impact factor as others ("most important scientific journal in the world", vs Nature or Science?), and merely being published is nowhere near sufficient for Wikipedia no matter what the publication is. Again, WP:PST is policy here: secondary sources are required, no matter how prestigeous the primary source might seem to some people. The nature of Wikipedia is to be conservative and wait for a new topic to become noticed in the field, not just be published originally. The whole goal is that many readers here are not knowledgeable in such a specialized field, so there need to be publications from independent authors to avoid undue weight bias. The extreme example of why this is important is the well-known reproducibility crisis of studies even in high-impact sources. There's no deadline--if your new approach is becomes more noticed in the field, not just published once and generating press at the time, easy enough to include it (along with those secondary refs to help give context and validity to it). DMacks (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

21:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not adding the inappropriate content. The content is 100% original and unique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErTaneja (talk • contribs) 07:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS, the standard guideline for what constitutes a "reliable source". Blogs and other self-published content, while often original and unique, don't meet the standard. DMacks (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello DMacks, it's me Space Chinedu I am sorry for the trouble I have given you and you are right I need to start writing things in my own words. So I did just that and created a new article in my sandbox. Please, I want you to check the new article that I created in my sandbox and see if it is up to Wikipedia standards. If there are any problems or anything you would like to add let me know. If the article is okay let me know so that I can paste it as a new article on Wikipedia. The link is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Space_chinedu/sandbox. I really appreciate if you verify the new article I made. Space chinedu (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

It has been moved and it is now an article. But still verify it please Space chinedu (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The page appears to have been moved to Anthene rhoko, where User:Yamla deleted it as copyvio. DMacks (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

15:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello there, hope all is well. I'm unable to find the contest deletion button, Any advise :) Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z1 Storage (talk • contribs) 14:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Z1 Storage: We can talk here if you like. The goal of your user-page appeared to be to document you and your company with an eye towards getting the word out about it. It was reasonably identified as self-promotion by User:Viewmont Viking, an assessment with which I agreed. Please see WP:YFA, in particular, the strong advice against writing about anything with which you have a conflict of interest. Don't even bother starting until the topic is notable. Wikipedia isn't facebook, where every company can get a page. DMacks (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@DMacks: I understand, perhaps not the right way for me to go about getting the word out, but my intention was to only add us as S3 Compatible Data storage under the Amazon S3 page, however that was rejected too. I already see Wasabi, Backblaze on the list, so I thought it would be fine. Anyways, thanks for the advise and your time.--Z1 Storage (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
• The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

• The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

15:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Left a message on the talk page of the article that is partly directed at yourself (after yr recent revert). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oska (talk • contribs) 04:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

My edit was explained in WP:ES. If you cannot WP:AGF, a core wikipedia policy, you will not get further response from me. DMacks (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

From your edit summary : "this is a topical aspect". I have responded to this justification in that talk section. I believe it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what wikipedia is (or should be). Oska (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

13:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you do not think I was this anon or this other one who made edits to Sundown town. Seriously. I always log in before I make edits on my mobile phone. Since you said "Finish undoing User:Shāntián Tàiláng contradicting talkpage/regs" like somebody was hampering your efforts or something...I mean, you didn't undo my edit until 10 days after it was made, while in that time period, only 4 other edits were made. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you were those IPs. You made this edit that involved two changes. An IP (2001:569:72CB:B800:7C07:DC39:AF5E:DBE3 ) undid one of the two changes, and I was undoing the other one. So I was completing what the IP started. They did not use an edit-summary to explain anything, so we don't know what they were thinking. However, I would have undone your whole edit (both parts) if I had seen it first. My edit-summary regarding talk-page (and my mis-spelling of "refs" as "regs") is the reason. You made no explanation of your edit either, so we don't know what you were thinking. But the talk-page has some support for the idea (including cited recent refs) that the phenomenon is not solely historical. DMacks (talk) 02:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Be an admin, first go to Special:UserRights, then go to type: "FavIconMusicPublisher", the click bureaucrat, and admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FavIconMusicPublisher (talk • contribs) 06:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

No. DMacks (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually wait, I did find something to click. DMacks (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

what are you even talking about with that edit on addition reactions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickpayifson (talk • contribs) 01:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

that not even a critique regarding organic chemistry.....?? Nickpayifson (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)nickpayifson

"Cat" is short for "Category". Categories are a hierarchy, not a loose collection of tags. Each cat is itself part of one or more "parent" cats, so one can walk up and down to find the more-general topics or a collection of more-specific subtopics. If Category:A is itself a subcategory of Category:B, then the Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles guideline says we should not use both. If it's only about the specific "A" aspect of "B", then we should not list B. If it's about the wider topic of "B" not just the specific "A" aspect, then "B" rather than "A" is more appropriate. So the main article about addition reactions goes in the addition reactions category whereas the subtopic article about electrophilic addition reactions goes in the electrophilic addition reactions category. DMacks (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

electrophilic "ADDITION" reaction lol? It's in the name!!! there are a few additional reactions like EAS, NAR, CAR, and CarbAR. Let's say I want to make a new page about ADDITION REACTIONS. Should I request 4 different article pages??Nickpayifson (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)nickpayifson

We already have Electrophilic addition, Electrophilic aromatic substitution, Nucleophilic aromatic substitution, ... DMacks (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

That’s one addition reaction you listed Nickpayifson (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You mentioned EAS yourself, so I was going with that theme. But we also do have Nucleophilic addition. Maybe you'd be more clear writing things out in full words to avoid ambiguity or misreading. DMacks (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Here I’ll lay it out for you!

Addition reactions (parent)

• Included in this category are these sub cats

EAS ( this should not be a parent cat because it is an addition reaction) NAS CAR etc.....

You literally typed ELECTROPHILIC AROMATIC SUB?? I agree that would definitely be a different cat!

Nickpayifson (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Your user box’s says you are chemist? Are acronyms for addition reactions unfamiliar? Nickpayifson (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You seem to think "EAS" (and now "NAS"?) are addition reactions, but the standard chemical meaning of those acronyms are reactions that are classified as substitutions. The full outcome isn't to "add" to the ring--that's just typically the first mechanistic step. Instead, something else winds up getting lost--the new group "substitutes" for it. Now it's quite possible you have a different meaning of "EAS" in mind, one perhaps where the "A" stands for "addition"? Again, it seems like the way you are writing now is not communicating some of your ideas clearly enough. Therefore, writing in full words rarther than short-hand will help you be understood.

You can look at Category:Addition reactions and see the category hierarchy we currently have, and the articles in each. DMacks (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey so I finally saw your message (I hope i did the Wikilink thing correctly) in my User talk page, first I want to thank you for linking the introduction in your message. Now I wanted to address the Thomas J. Martin fire extinguisher/standpipe, I think someone incorrectly thought that his patent was for a fire extinguisher, and typed the patent wrong. After I corrected the patent number I saw that the description stated it was an improvement to the Fire Extinguisher. But as you said in your message, the way it is further described and illustrated definitely makes me think that the patent is for a standpipe, and I don't think it should be in the page for Fire Extinguishers at all, and I could attribute the patent of standpipes to him in the standpipe page. --Miletius1 (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Your links are fine. Thanks for double-checking! Let me know if you need any help with the editing. DMacks (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

17:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was vandalizing that video about RBD. It was just because of the cuss words. I wanted to make it safer. PenYesBojNo2007 (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

See WP:CENSORED to learn why our global encyclopedia sites are not allowed to bend to what you personally feel is "safer". DMacks (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You sir should take your own advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B002:3512:7438:12EE:816B:8C3F (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

https://www.usa.gov/government-works

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1025521199

You see he hides the truth the facts because if the truth is known he may lose financially I assume...

FYI I’m not going away dickhead but I swear I am gonna be heard and DMacks who hides behind his keyboard is gonna be called out when that happens. Trust me dip shit I’m way smarter than you and I am gonna be heard. I promise you this.

Dear Dmacks,

I am not sure why you are removing my content*. The link shows how to solve mazes in a very practical way using Python scripting. It is just as prudent as the other external links. Please can you explain your rational for removal in relation to the other external links which are present.

Best wishes,

Dominic

• How to Solve a Maze: Video and Jupyter lab guide to solving mazes using Python scripting language and the Breadth-first approach.

I would like to jump in on this as well. This individual edited one of my post claiming opinion oppose to fact... Well sir you are wrong my content is fact and I suggest you back off before I escalate this matter into a full blow dispute. Please see link below “The definition of an expert witness, according to the Federal Rule of Evidence”. Trust me pal I fit that description very well. (That’s not opinion either that’s fact too)

https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/what-is-an-expert-witness/

I’m not gonna back off on this one. I spent 20 year in the carpet industries and ran manufacturing facilities for some of the largest carpet manufacturers in the world. So unless you have just spent half your life working directly for these same large companies and managed to retire at the age of 39 like I did, You have no place editing my content, because sir you don’t know what your talking about.

—opinion(s)- clearly defined so you can see where we separate from fact to opinion. Seeing your background is in chemistry, you probably have some interest in petroleum based products or recycling because, I think you sir have a biased opinion and some kind of financial dog in the fight.

—-fact(s)—- clearly defined so you can see where we return to facts. The EPA does not release opinions they release facts as do I unless otherwise stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.64.129.242 (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

To further expound on this topic and now recognizing your an “Academic” I would like to point out not only did I run factories for these companies I also served as the Corporate Electrical Engineer for The Dixie Group because I also specialize in Industrial Automation and Process controls. These amazing gifts were given to me not by some fancy schools but by my own abilities to learn independently. I sir dropped out of high school in the 10th grade at the age of 15 in 1995. Remember I retired at the age of 39 2020.

I spent 20 years working, learning, designing, and building machines in a real industry and not editing Wikipedia pages or repeating what someone told me. Some are perhaps educated beyond their intelligence. Perhaps this is why your still working and I’m very comfortably retired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B002:3512:7438:12EE:816B:8C3F (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Copyright violations are prohibited no matter who you claim to be. That's wikipedia's non-negotiable policy. DMacks (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You sir did not state Copyright Violations! You stated opinion, maybe you should work on articulating your thoughts properly, instead of learning fancy words and regurgitating them so that seem smarter than you really are.

Oh and I’m not claiming nothing, I am stating fact as to who I am. You sir are claiming to be something your obviously not, intelligent...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligent

https://github.com/GoGreenOrGoHome/Documents/blob/main/Destabilization%20and%20Decentralization.pdf

Your welcome to put those in <ref> format I don’t have time for such silly thing on your personal page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:b002:3512:7438:12ee:816b:8c3f (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I exactly stated "Copyvio, and WP:SYNTH opinions". Now I also direct your attention to WP:CIVIL. Complying with that policy is also not optional. DMacks (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Well you should have left WP:SYNTH opinions out of it.

Again sir what university do you work for and exactly how much money does your school, department, field of study, etc receive from a failed recycling industry, a rich plastic company, or Big Oil?

U need to wake up bud or stop being dishonest.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled

https://www.coca-colacompany.com/news/packaging-sustainability-in-united-states

https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/containers-and-packaging-product-specific-data#PlasticC&P

These are not opinions.

We have trash problem because we buy trash. How well do your kids toys last compared to yours when you where a child. Look around everything is plastic and disposable.

The way we are using plastics is just ridiculous, the plastic wrap on the bread last how long? Lot longer than the bread huh? It’s like we are using a weed eater to give a haircut. Carpets is much worse.

U know what it looks like to receive in 40,000 lb containers of plastic rugs on a continual basis? U know what it looks like to stand and watch a finishing line run at 150 ft per min?

12 ft wide x 150 ft long is 200 square yards of carpet a min... most carpets are 2/3 lbs per yard. 400/600 lbs of plastic a min getting more plastic added as an action bac and sbr látex.

We had 3 of them. I know because i did control work on all of them. I also know we outsourced finishing as well because of capacity needs. This is the smallest of the 4 largest carpet companies in the USA. I know about outsourcing because I had to do it when I managed a facility and was also ask to see how to increase capacity without adding an additional line. I was offered positions by #1 and #2 as well but knew they were too “corporate” for me to be happy there.

I watched every bit of this thing play out on the front lines for 20 years. I or the machine I repaired or upgraded has made mile and miles and miles of this junk. I had fun doing it and made a lot of money. I don’t have to fight this fight... I’m fighting it because it’s the right thing to do for the environment and the people that work in the industry making carpets. This search for the bottom of the price points has also devalued the sweat, blood and tears that labors put into making our carpets.

I know this because my blood, sweat, and tears are in the mix with theirs, because I was down in the lint grit and grime with them.

Everyone in the industry knows these things... everyone knows carpet recycling is a lie, just a money grab.

Years ago and today very high end carpets and rugs use jute, cotton, or cotton/hemp primary backings. The pile on these products are wool. We can do that again sure it may cost a little more but the truth of it... wool cost 3.25 US per pound so does solution dyed nylon... once you add dye cost to the wool your gonna be around 4.25 tops. That’s only 2/3 bucks a yard. Most residential carpet installation are well under 25 yards per room that’s a little less than a 12x19. So it would cost an extra 50/75 bucks per room. The difference is even less apparent in rugs which are typically much smaller of course. There would be additional cost for natural primary and natural rubber or biodegradable hot melt for finishing but it’s not going to be significant either.

FYI The Future King of England owns more sheep than any other individual on earth. Why don’t you run this by him?

I decided I would post a couple of pics as proof to my story for you.

https://github.com/GoGreenOrGoHome/Images/blob/main/0E7076BE-B2E2-4BE8-B8EB-859D70A44B03.jpeg

https://github.com/GoGreenOrGoHome/Images/blob/main/11C9736B-0228-4CC0-8EF6-01C8B8EF67CA.jpeg

Incase you don’t recognize it, it resides at 1600 Pensilvania Ave. I put carpet in Air Force one too.

I am who I say I am and I know these things to be fact. That is like me telling you your belief the world is round is an opinion. Why is that seems crazy? Because you can probably prove it’s round(ish) using simple math the same way I can. Well u may or may not know this carpet recycling this is a flat earth and I’m trying to show the world how to do the simple math so they can see the “world is round”. You follow me? Plain, blunt, to the point, like it is! Because 1 most humans want data as fast and condensed as they can get it and 2 you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to look at what these companies say on their website and what the EPA is saying is really happening.

You can only tell the lie so long. The lie disgusted me for 20 years. Well I’m done being discussed and I’m gonna fix it even if I have to do it alone.

Hopefully by now you have recognized, I am an expert. I qualified enough to be cited. That’s the truth.

If you care anything about the environment or common working folks, you may consider helping me because I am gonna be heard and everyone that turns a deaf ear to me now is going to exposed when the world hears my voice and it will. If you don’t believe me call COO of DXYN as ask him if the events in my PDF actually happened. If he says no, I can send you a piece of paper with date and our signatures to prove it.

If you do believe me and want to help me, I could use it, we would just need to find away to connect in a less public venue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:b002:3512:7438:12ee:816b:8c3f (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You'll need to discuss WP content issues on WP, not a less-public venue. That (as well as the WP:V policy someone else has mentioned) help maintain transparency for our collaborative editing platform. you seem to be here mostly for WP:ADVOCACY, which is perhaps leading you away from multiple core policies and guidelines about content and/or behavior. I see you have already gotten yourself blocked for repeated inability to follow them. DMacks (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

IP Address are cheap. I get it dude your on the take... You receive money in some form or fashion from OIL, PLASTICS, OR CARPET. Just say that. Its cool everyone has got to eat, but don't hide behind some imaginary rule book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:cf:300:7c30:dc3e:d1bc:9128:5b34 (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I advocate that the financial information should be reverted to be as shown in Old revision of National Society of Collegiate Scholars#Finances (or updated with more recent financials).

A couple of reasons:

1. As a (non-profit) membership organization, members or prospective members have a particular interest in knowing that funds are being spent appropriately, i.e. to serve the purposes of the organization, rather than some private interest.
2. NSCS promotes the opportunity the NSCS offers for members to receive scholarships. The financials show that not only do membership fees exceed scholarship awards, the scholarship awards are only a small percentage of the membership fees.

In short, NSCS does not appear to be effectively serving the proper interests of such an organization, nor is it effective at providing this specific benefit to persons who decide to join NSCS. Fabrickator (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

That sounds exactly like the WP:OR/WO:NPOV concern I had. There are lots of organizations that publish analyses of non-profits, charities, and other groups that claim to be philanthropic in some manner. They can help provide context, such as how NSCS compares to other such groups, rather than a personal feeling for what is a "small percentage". DMacks (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I have a few concerns of my own here. First of all, I didn't realize there was a small edit war going on; my next step is to make that Dupont editor declare their COI. Fabrickator, I don't know exactly what version you are comparing with what. The "notable numbers" were added here, by Michaelbluejay. If a POV is suspected in the very presentation of those numbers (for which, as DMacks correctly pointed out, there is only a primary source, and thus the very term "notable figures" is pure OR, then I'm not sure what the POV is. One can say, look! So much money in scholarships! or one can say look! such a small percentage for scholarships! One could point at the CEO salary, and call it high or low, etc. So I'm not sure which way the POV leans, and for now my problem is more with the rest of the article

DMacks, it really is the kind of thing we might need a project-wide consensus for, and personally I don't care which way it goes. If you think the numbers should go, go ahead and remove them, but everything would be so much easier if we had some secondary sources. Our COI editor, User:DupontNSCS, is not likely to be forthcoming with them unless they are positive. Plus, I have no doubt they really don't know much (yet) about how Wikipedia works. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

17:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• 1,3-Diphenylisobenzofuran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi DMacks. I've trying to touch up this article using my rudimentary knowledge of chemistry. The page had been marked as needing attention by someone who knew German, which I do know. You put a maintenance banner on it back in 2019. Do you happen to remember what the 'missing key reagents in images' issue was? I assume these would be reagents mentioned in the text but not the images? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

If I recall based on quick re-look, there are several images out-of-sync with the text (especially images having "content" unsupported by text that is unusual enough it either needs a cite or a factual correction. I will look in more detail in the next day or two. DMacks (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

20:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless

Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
• Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

Technical news

• Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

• After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.

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

I had delayed admin intervention with the article because one editor had already asked for your help directly. Could you take a look, or at least offer some suggestions? I've now requested full protection, and think the next step should be getting editors blocked or banned. This has gone on far too long and there's clearly not enough help from experienced editors. --Hipal (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC) Hi Hipal. Sorry I got buried with other tasks past few days. I see another admin set EC protection, and the subseuent edits look okay so I don't think we need full protection. I do not know enough about Kapalbhati to have substantive input and will continue to have little time to be an active facilitator of any discussion until late next week. DMacks (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

20:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

15:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe that this constitutes WP:Synthesis. Our List of ammonium nitrate disasters is not itself a reliable source. Do you have a single source that states your conclusion explicitly?

You also removed a statement sourced to The New York Times. I quote:

This supports the statement: "Ammonium nitrate is not, on its own, an explosive..." Do you have a source on par with The New York Times stating clearly that "Pure ammonium nitrate is an explosive." (and not just unstable under extreme conditions)? You mentioned some "scientific refs" in an edit summary; which ones specifically?

Thanks, 71.234.210.113 (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

As a start, [30], cited at List of ammonium nitrate disasters, states:

"Ammonium nitrate, which is used in fertilizers and bomb making, is a salt made from ammonium and nitric acid, and it is highly explosive...To start the reaction, ammonium nitrate must come into contact with an open flame or other ignition source...Once a reaction is sparked, ammonium nitrate explodes violently.""

Ref #12 is from the American Chemical Society:

"The chemistry behind ammonium nitrate’s explosive risk is well known...the ammonium nitrate stores exploded...under normal conditions the fertilizer is inert. It will slowly decompose over time but can explode if it is set off by a fire""

and that C&EN article links to another (about the 2013 Texas explosion):

"Ammonium nitrate is an explosive sometimes used by terrorists and the source of numerous industrial accidents and thousands of deaths worldwide.""

Although it can be stored safely by following careful rules and is not as sensitive as a primary explosive, it apparently does not take very "extreme" conditions to lead to a runaway explosion. On our List article, ref #2 is published by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. It includes a survey of the scientific literature at that time, quoting some that say it is explosive and others not. But then it includes a list of explosions, some of which do not indicate that other components were present.

Note that the ACS ref exactly supports the "thousands of deaths" also DMacks (talk)

I'm not too familiar with "Live Science", but so far it doesn't seem particularly reliable compared to NYT.

This C&EN article you mention is interesting. It does indeed support "thousands of deaths" (I suspected the statement could be sourced, so I tagged instead of removing it), and also states "ammonium nitrate is an explosive". However, this conflicts with other sources, and I'll note (as a curiosity, not something we can use) that the first comments on that article decry the sensationalism of calling ammonium nitrate an "explosive". We have several sources that are careful to not call ammonium nitrate "an explosive", and the federal government specifies only "Ammonium nitrate explosive mixtures", and not ammonium nitrate, in their list of explosive materials.

I think we'll have to be very careful in our sourcing and phrasing here. Thank you for working with me on this. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

16:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Administrator changes Trialpears AGK • Eliz81 • Mulad • ThaddeusB • Vianello • Who Lacrimosus → Ikuzaf Interface administrator changes Ragesoss

CheckUser changes AGK • DGG Oversighter changes AGK

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
• An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

• IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

• The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.