User talk:DMacks/Archive 52

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 pyranol article where you commented on the PROD is now subject of a full deletion discussion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

19:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, there has been a recent objection to the merger of Alkane stereochemistry into Conformational isomerism so I was wondering if you would be willing to rejoin the discussion again since the consensus was made years ago but I want to ensure that this current objection is heard by the original participants of the discussion before I merge and remove this from the backlog. Thanks! -Karthanitesh (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

No, you may not be right on this issue. There are articles about this person in the Azerbaijani and Russian Wikipedias. https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orxan_Bayramov_(rejissor), https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9E%D1%80%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%80_%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BB%D1%8BSenanbay (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Senanbay: are you asking about the conflict-of-interest concern or the image-deletions? DMacks (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I say a conflict of interest. There is also the issue of deleting images. Please help me with their recovery! Why are their copyrights deleted when they really belong to us?Senanbay (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

If they really belong to you, then please see commons:Commons:Volunteer Response Team for how to confirm it by email. If it's true that you own the images, then you are strongly and likely financially related to the film/director and that's pretty much the definition of a conflict of interest for articles about them. DMacks (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand why this was removed from Zwitterion‎, but the lability of the proton does not invalidate the example. It means that the two isomers will be in equilibrium in solution. I don't know why the zwitterion is shown in the article Psilocybin. Is this the form found in the solid state crystal structure or was it just assumed on the basis that the Me₂N(R) group is more basic than the phosphate group? It was included on the basis of the structure shown in the article. Petergans (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised that the zwitterionic form is the major one if the molecule is net charge zero, based on pKa of phosphoric-acid vs amine. That's how psilocybin article explains it, with a 9.1 pKa-unit difference. But it cites TOXNet, which no longer exists, and it's not clear whether the cite is merely for the pKa values anyway. But published X-ray structures have it as zwitterionic: doi:10.1039/P29740000942 and doi:10.1107/S2053229621013164 (open-access!). I agree (obviously) that the structure is zwitterionic as drawn, but have not found any ref about its lability. Given that it's a chemical that some lay-readers will recognize, I support its inclusion. The only question is whether we consider it labile or not. Our article currently distinguishes ones that are non-interconvertable (quaternary ammonium/phosphonium) from ones that are internal acid–base proton transfer. So if we are strict about that as a structural definition rather than setting some numerical equilibrium cut-off, we can resolve the original remover's concern by relocating psilocybin to the acid–base set of examples. DMacks (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

21:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

17:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Administrator changes AustralianRupert • Cimon Avaro • Euryalus • Jehochman • Nunh-huh 28bytes Bureaucrat changes 28bytes

Interface administrator changes Evad37 • Galobtter Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
• The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

• Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
• The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
• A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.

Hi. Couple of things.

For the revision on enantiomers (31st Jan 2022), I fully agree that it is rather..poorly written, that's because I'm still learning. However as for the weirdly specific part, I pondered for some time if I should bother adding it and only decided to do so after I checked the talk page, where it is suggested a couple times to merge both enantiomers and chirality, so I would like to disagree on it being weirdly specific. If there exists a want to merge the two pages, I feel like adding a section on their differences for people who think they're the same is not "weirdly specific".

I'm not the only one with the doubts, and a google search didn't help. Most of my class (~80 out of the ~140 now connected via discord because online) also had the same question and no-one could find an answer since in certain sites some profs. said it was the same thing, while others said they were different, only to (infuriatingly) state the same thing for both. With my professor explicitly saying not to ask him questions outside of office hours, we searched for like an hour and a half before someone (me) finally understood it, and since I couldn't get the information from any useful articles, and a quick glance at the content summary table of enantiomers didn't mention a difference, I thought it would be nice to add a subsection (at the very, very end nonetheless). The simple.wikipedia for enantiomers didn't help, before you ask.

I of course, don't have a PhD nor have taught; I was not even considering university until last minute, so I respect your view. Consequently though I'd like to ask you to either include a more blunt, worded in a way you deem "not less-clear", and short explanation of the difference that exists between the two (preferably on the end of the first section, before the contents table or at the end of the page in a short section), that fits your standards. Alternatively you could teach me how to do it myself, or do nothing at all, but if I had to make an educated guess, it is science students that visit these types of pages the most. I get that the whole of wikipeda isn't to cater to a particular group but a short explanation for something many people get confused would be nice. I added the same section to the simple.wikipedia and it's fine, so whatever you do (if you do) maybe port it over to that page as well.

Of course you don't have to do anything, and I half-expect nothing anyway, but considering there's more than just 2 people wanting to merge both chirality and enantiomers, that the wiki article basically repeats the same thing twice ("non superimposable mirror image"), with my whole class also had the same question, and that the rest of the internet not helping, there's likely going to be more people trying to understand the difference between the two concepts by searching it up *quickly* on wikipedia, without the time to read the equivalent of 1.5 lecture's worth of things they already know.

Have a nice morning/evening/night.

Maj Swag (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey DMacks, just here to remind you that you blocked my Wikimedia Commons account on 06 August 2021 with an indefinite expiration time on grounds of continuously uploading non-free images. I would like to inform you that my account was made eligible for The Wikpedia Library on 28 January 2022 but I was denied access because of the block. I assure you that I've made myself aware of the licenses and other know-hows regarding uploading new files on Commons and will ensure not to repeat my previous mistakes again. I hereby request you to revoke my block so that I could access the The Wikipedia Library. Warm regards. Derivator2017 (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Please place your request on your talk-page on commons...you still have write-access there. DMacks (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@DMacks: Please reply to me in my Commons talk page. I am eagerly waiting for your reply. Derivator2017 (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this revert. Over the past week or so, several IPs and new accounts have been making similarly disruptive changes to exactly the same numbers; a few other articles were also hit by the same IPs. I feel this warrants SPI/RPP, as there is a very clear pattern of the same unsourced, unnecessary, and inadequately explained changes, and talk page messages have been futile. It is becoming disruptive, but since several IPs and accounts are making these changes, a simple AIV report won't work. What do you think? ComplexRational (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I am going to try to improve the article, Birshrestha Noor Mohammad Public College. In its current shape, it does not meet notability guidelines. Give me an hour to improve; if it doesn't meet the guidelines after an hour then please feel free to add the prod back.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The reason why I think it might be notable is that it is one of the top ten schools in the country (Bangladesh) based on national exams (Higher Secondary School Certificate) performance.

No worry, no hurry. Just wanted to make sure it was not a simple mis-click. DMacks (talk) 06:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

21:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

19:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

19:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

)

85CheM (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Aww, thanks 85CheM! DMacks (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Immediately prior to submitting a case to SPI I discovered that you had already solved the problem. Thanks for your help. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. DMacks (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

22:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Administrator changes Modussiccandi BOZ • Brookie (deceased) • Jackmcbarn • Jamesday • Jonathunder • Master of Puppets • Saravask

CheckUser changes Callanecc Oversighter changes Callanecc

Guideline and policy news

• A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
• A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.

Technical news

• The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
• Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
• The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)

Arbitration

• Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
• Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
• The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.

Template:Connected contributor/refactored has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

21:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Cannabigerovarin! ––FormalDude talk 22:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Delicious! Thanks. New chemistry articles typically pop up on a few dashboard-categories I watch as soon as they hit mainspace, but feel free to ping me if you want to talk about any such things while they're still in the queue. DMacks (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

22:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

15:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aromaticity&diff=1077997738&oldid=1077997362

It's a common error but "to" is not a universal preposition. If I compare a tangerine to an orange, I am saying that it is like an orange. If I compare a tangerine with an orange, I am assessing how similar/different they are to/from each other.

That's another common misunderstanding - it's always "different from", never "different to".

Have fun 220.235.122.247 (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard "different to" in any context. But "compare to", when talking about some types of differences, appears to be fairly common in some fields of study. Doesn't mean it's right though. I'm definitely happy to go with what's correct. I checked the ACS Style Guide to confirm that chemistry uses "to"=similar/"with"=different, even if lots of chemistry writing that I've read does not follow it. DMacks (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry but being a non-nerd I guess they could be a sock, but I don't know how to check - I'm more at ease using a typewriter than a keyboard!!!!. Thanks for all your good work. regards Denisarona (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

19:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. Enjoy!! Denisarona (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the suds, and thanks in general for all your edits too! DMacks (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi DMacks,

Last year you properly suspected that someone working on the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering article was affiliated with them. That was me, and I do indeed work on the communications team at the Wyss. I apologize for not following Wikipedia’s COI protocol – I was not aware of the rules at the time.

In response to your flagging, I first disclosed my conflict of interest on my userpage. I then went about a total rewrite of the article in my sandbox draft.

The current live version is inaccurate, poorly cited, unorganized and out of date. In my new draft, I have taken serious effort to be neutral and non-promotional, basing the article on major citations about scientific developments. I think the real heart of what Wyss is about is large donations that have led to a lot of new science and technology. Hopefully my draft reflects that (and only that).

I would really appreciate you looking at it, and if you find it a major improvement, replacing the current page with the draft.

Best,

S.A. Kroll S.A.Kroll (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi DMacks,

Just checking in. Do you think you have time and bandwidth to look at my re-write? If not, do you recommend I post on the article talk page?

Thanks,

Seth

S.A.Kroll (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

21:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Administrator changes Firefly • Sdrqaz Ad Orientem Geschichte • Ryan Postlethwaite • Sabine's Sunbird • Wassupwestcoast

Interface administrator changes Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.

Technical news

• Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
• When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
• A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
• A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.

Please revert your edit at Prairie View A&M University‎; by reverting another editor's edit to preserve one of your own edits you've begun an edit war. And you've done that while admonishing me to adhere to WP:BRD.

You also reference the practices of WP:WPSCH. You know that local consensus cannot override project-wide consensus. If you or others think that WP:N should be changed, you are welcome to propose changes to that guideline. ElKevbo (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

You're too late. While you were looking to comment on my commenting on BRD, I already wrote the article (and included additional notability claim). And re-added it to the Prairie View list. In the correct location (something that should have been fixed if he were to be re-included). DMacks (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

19:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that in the brown mama did stink bug wiki you don't mention that stink bugs don't have to be handled aggressively they are in my opinion very cute and sweet and I love them but that's besides the point I just wanted to let you know that I would like it I mean you don't have to but I'd like it if you added a category I mentioning that stink bugs can be simply moved outside or taking care of it in a terrarium and do not have to be handled with pest control they simply come inside your house because they need shelter I just Can you please add a little Category about that 2603:7080:7F43:B200:AC00:710A:500C:88C3 (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not for advocacy or opinions, no matter how well-meaning they might be. DMacks (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello DMacks.

Thank you for this edit of yours. Last year I posted a section on this very issue at Help talk:Category#Section wording – Putting pages into categories. I got no response and I pretty much forgot about it.

So I have to ask: Did you happen to read my talk page post? --DB1729 (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:DB1729!

Interesting! No, I did not look at that talk-page at all. I was reading the help-page to try to understand a slightly different detail, and this detail happened to catch my eye. It was just a WP:BOLD "my initial reading gave me the wrong impression, let's make it say more-clearly what is meant" change. DMacks (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

At the time I wasn't sure, and I'm still not sure now tbh, if it's okay to boldly change Help page guidelines. I thought it was likely one would need some kind of consensus at a relevant talk page. DB1729 (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I felt it was non-controversial enough, and not a change that prescribed editors to do anything differently. But I guess I'll find out:) DMacks (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)