User talk:DMacks/Archive 42

Archive 35Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45

20:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hydrogen atom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ionic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

15:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

13:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

your block of user: 24.38.204.216

The Macy's Parade LTA is back yet again. See User:Salvidrim!/Macy VG IP vandal and Special:Contributions/65.51.14.2 -- Meters (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

21:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Trifluoroperacetic acid: Good Article Nomination

Hello, some time ago the article on Trifluoroperacetic acid was nominated to be a good article, I had the pleasure of reviewing it (the review can be found here), I left some minor grammatical comments, as there were points were it did not read as well as it could, I just wanted you to make sure you were aware of this, as you are a person that seems to have done a lot of work for the article, if these minor issues could be addressed I would be very happy. AlastairJHannaford (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

This Month in Education: July 2019

This Month in Education

Volume 8 • Issue 7 • July 2019


ContentsHeadlinesSubscribe


In This Issue

"that"

Your point [that I had overdone that] is well taken; likewise the appearance of spam. Meanwhile...

Spam?--Brogo13 (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

PD-USGov academic articles

Because you previously wrote on the topic, I think you may be interested in commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bischoff and Rosenbauer, 1988 - Liquid-vapor relations.pdf. Nemo 07:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI

I don't care enough for that article, but just so you know, a MoS is also just as toothless as a userspace essay. Any MoS is only optional and not binding. Just because some WikiProject has parked its flag on some article, does not mean it gets to dictate that specific article. Instead, this is decided through local consensus and what is best for the article. Just trying to make it clear why my original edit just links a user essay, and why that in itself is not justification to immediately revert. Not sure if you read it or not, but my essay does elaborate on the issue in depth, rather than just dictate without justification as MoS's tend to do. Opencooper (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I did read the essay, and I do have sympathy for being semantically correct about the meaning of a dict-def list vs somehow indenting. But I also know that that position does not have major support at this time, neither wikipedia-wide nor specifically in the various science working-groups. I don't support creating facts on the ground against consensus prior to developing a new consensus. Not just CHEM, but also MATH has the colon as the standard for indenting. And their MOS are part of the site MOS, not just locally-stamped consensus. DMacks (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The validity of their conesnsus was ratified in December 2017 (Wikipedia:Village pump_(policy)/Archive 138#RfC: Accessibility versus convenience in indentation) despite it contradicting other parts of MOS. DMacks (talk) 07:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

13:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Might want to check in on User:JamesRock2013

Based on his edit history, the guy seems a bit unhinged. HalfShadow 17:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

What tipped you off, wombat<->dog edit-warring? I dropped them a level-3 warning, but they haven't edited in the past few days, so nothing much to do for now I guess. DMacks (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Chayobriggs

Hello, DMacks,

What do you think of the new unblock request at User talk:Chayobriggs? I'm inclined to give him a second chance to see if he can make contributions about financial topics. But I'll follow your lead. Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: I have low expectations of a successful outcome if they work in that genre after looking at the deleted content and other details about these editors. But I could go along with WP:ROPE as soon as we get complete clarity of the real-world relationship of these accounts (see my note on Chayobriggs's talkpage). Right now, it sounds like there are (or at least were) at least two people and at least one of them using two accounts. I'm going to be taking a few days off wiki this coming week, so if you think there is a clear and wiki-policy-correct answer to those issues, feel free to unblock in whatever way makes the most sense to disentangle them. DMacks (talk) 05:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

18:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Notification

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. This is just a courtesy since you reverted some of OuvertonBridge's edits. 331dot (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Acidity of boric acid

Sir how boric acid is tribasic? Vanshita poddar (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

It is monoacid in Lewis sense. It doesn't give any H+ in water but infact gains OH- from water creating H+ ions and making the solution acid. But it can only take one such hydroxide ion from water cause it can not extend ita octet beyond that. How do you find me wrong. Please assist me to know the correct information. Vanshita poddar (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

As the article clearly states, that idea is only one possible (and not universally accepted) basis for the acidity of boric acid, is specific to water, and possibly only occurs at very high pH. That is, your universal claim of "in fact" is not well supported. The Lewis acidity is so weak that it doesn't even get involved in hydrogen bonding in the solid state (the B are planar). Instead, the article also notes that there are three pKa values, and we have other articles about various salts and esters that involve all three OH groups. So it might be a monobasic Lewis acid but it's at least as relevant as a tribasic Brønsted-Lawry acid and B-L is a subset of Lewis. There might be a way to include both ideas. DMacks (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for enlightening me sir. I apologize for that 'infact" part if that concerns you. It was not intended to make a wrong sense. Vanshita poddar (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Sir can you please acknowledge me how that hydrogen bond part makes Lewis acidity of Boron trihydroxide suspicious? Boron lacks it's octet as well in this compound. So how is it supposed to be a weak Lewis acid? And the EN difference between boron and hydrogen being not large, how this compound is supposed to make hydrogen bonds in solid state? Please acknowledge me how Lewis acid strength and hydrogen bonding are correlated? Vanshita poddar (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

You are proposing that it is a Lewis acid, which means it is an electron acceptor. You are proposing that it does this by accepting OH from water. Those are reasonable ideas, given the lack of octet on boron. But note that our article says that B(OH)4 in "strongly alkaline solutions". If boron accepts from an oxygen donor, then having an oxygen in close proximity should make the donation more likely. Regardless of the B–O bond polarity, the oxygens do have lone pairs. In water ice, each oxygen atom H-bonds to two hydrogen atoms (one from each of two other water molecules), giving a tetrahedeal geometry. In solid boric acid, the boron atom is exactly trigonal–planar. There is a single H-bond from each oxygen to one hydrogen from an adjacent atom. But even though the boron atoms are positioned near other molecules' oxygen atoms, they are very far apart: almost 2.5 times the intramolecular B–O bond-length and 20% further than the H-bonded O•••H length. That suggests to me that there is not a strong H-bonding between the O and the B, which means the B remains without a satisfied octet. Therefore it is not a strong Lewis acid because even when forced in close proximity to an oxgygen that can donate it does not accept. Maybe instead there is resonance from oxygen to form a partial pi bond?
All of this is my own analysis, as is what you are saying. And therefore none of it is viable for our article. Instead, we would need a reliable published source. Looking closely at the talkpage, I agree that "monobasic, with some tribasic ideas" as in your later changes is a good summary. User:37.210.142.107 did not provide an explanation for why changing it to tribasic. DMacks (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your "strong alkaline" part, I would like to discuss this further. Sir [B(OH)4]- exist even in water which is not a strong alkali. Boron does not accept lone pairs from oxygen in B(OH)3 and I guess the inter atomic distance may be the correct explanation for this. Besides, I don't understand how we can scale the strength of Lewis acids of various compounds. I suppose the resonance part may also be true but if resonance is possible, electron donation from adjacent oxygen should also be possible. Isn't so? Overall, I think boron truhydroxide is stable in solid state because of the formation of H bonds, which stabilises the solid and also, I suppose there must be some back bonding instead of this inter atomic distance for octet accomplishment of B. I will be waiting for authorised results and would love to know about it. Thanks for the discussion.

Vanshita poddar (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I was going through the page once again and noticed your edits regarding formation of BO3^-3 ions. I would like to know name of some borates having this ion. I was going through a wikipedia page about sodium perborate which has this ion but in its structure, the compound is hydrated and boron is attached to OH- ions rather than just O^-2 ions which further concerns me if it actually behaves as Bronsted acid or not. If it doesn't, I would like to know the source of those three Pka values noted at the page. If it does, please provide Some examples where is exist as that ion. Vanshita poddar (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The borate article mentions Ca3(BO3)2 as having trigonal–planar borate ions. The Béhierite article notes that the usual structure of borate minerals is to have planar borate groups. We have a brief article about neodymium aluminium borate. Doi:10.1021/jp5120465 is an interesting article about the effect of cation concentration on the structure of borate ions. DMacks (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Sir, in what possible ways I can contact with you? Vanshita poddar (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Right here on my talkpage. I can be reached by email using the "Email this user" link in the sidebar, but I generally don't respond unless there is a substantial need for privacy (wikipedia is by its nature based on public discussion and collaboration). DMacks (talk) 06:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Can't I get your social media address or something for future concerns? Vanshita poddar (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay fine then Can I discuss anything about chemistry on your talk page? Vanshita poddar (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

New at wikipedia

Hi DMack,

I got your message. What if the entry is based on experience actually living in this neighborhood and entering comments on based on real life. Do I have to put my name as a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safeneighborhoods (talkcontribs) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Personal experiences are not acceptable, not matter how genuine. See wikipedia's reliable-sources guideline. DMacks (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

15:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Greenwashing

Dear DMacks, I was not advertising my research in my last modification of the entry "Greenwashing" but simply adding the results obtained because relevant. As much as those obtained from Ramus' research, cited in the same way a few lines before. That's it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.158.194 (talk) 08:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

If you have to say "scientific journal" and similar qualifiers, that indicates you are trying to inflate the value of the ref rather than solely to use the ref to verify the content. See WP:REFSPAM for our site guideline and WP:COI for more commentary about the inherent risk we all have when we are unable to see the problem using our own real-world ideas. WP:RS is the guideline about the relative values of a source, it's not our place to editorialize on it. DMacks (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidelines you linked to me. I have read them carefully. I used the phrase "scientific journal" because I didn't want it to look like an unreliable source. Although I have published several research papers on these issues in recent years I have never made a change of this kind on Wikipedia because they were too specific results or journals not at a high international level. In this specific case the results obtained seemed to me interesting also for the public that uses Wikipedia and relevant to understand the theme in depth. And this time the journal is one of the most important at international level in this field of research, so I thought it could be a fairly reliable source. I apologize if I violated any rules. If you don't think I should publish these results to improve the "Greenwashing" page I won't publish them, but I'm disappointed. Also because I would no longer know how to contribute to Wikipedia as an academic researcher. Riccardo RikyToro (talk) 08:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I want to know the reason why undid my revision?

Hey, First of all, I am new on wikipedia, don't using it much at all. I am a traveler and traveling across Pakistan. I revised content about Naltar Valley in a number of articles. I did this, because I know there was some ambiguity and wrong information on these articles. For example there are seven lakes in Naltar Valley while wikipedia says there are three lakes, which is not correct. I cited this from a famous blog from Pakistan. You removed this revision. Kindly refer to any thing I did wrong. I do know that I am citing mostly two to three websites but the thing is they have best information on given topic and I can't revise a article here without citations. Happy editing Shuaib Shuaib77 (talk) 07:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Shuaib77. Correcting facts with simple mistakes like "number of lakes" is great! But much of the content you wrote is emotional/opinion about various sites or encouraging people to visit them. That's not okay...wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia. And blogs are generally not usable as references because they do not meet our "reliable source" guidelines. Can you find a more authoritative reference, such as an online atlas or other encyclopedia? DMacks (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I love the neutrality of wikipedia and that's the single best reason why everyone uses it. The thing is my revisions are neutral on all of those pages. Kindly do check them. If you have any issues with the citation, you should write that as a reason and not undo the revisions. I can add more citations where required. Deleting every revision I made yesterday is by far not the best thing to do, only to show that you need more revisions. Regards Shuaib77 (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

This is just one example of many of your edits where you claim things are "famous" and "best". Likewise, here you talk about "famous" and also other opinions such as "scenic". DMacks (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

09:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

This Month in Education: August 2019

This Month in Education

Volume 8 • Issue 8 • August 2019


ContentsHeadlinesSubscribe


In This Issue

Mail

 
Hello, DMacks. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Acroterion (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

hathitrust

Per https://www.hathitrust.org/help_copyright#RestrictedAccess, the link is not accessible outside of the US. DrKay (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Interesting! Thanks for the info. DMacks (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Advice on topic ban

Hello, as an admin who took part in the discussion, could you perhaps be so kind as to advise on how to proceed? Thanks, Nemo 11:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

About Blocking from Wikipedia Editing with a set of IP Range

Dear DMacks, would you please unblock me. I would previously edited some articles with Facebook's Free Basics app. But you blocked me suddenly. And now I am totally banned from Wikipedia editing with a range of Blocked IP address. If you want, you can see how many of my contributions have been denied or succeeded. I think you will unblock me within a short period of time and give me the chance of contribution to the Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. ———— RhythmWiki RhythmWiki (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear DMacks, kindly note that my blocked Username/ID is #7337695. Please unblock me, I am promising, if further mistakes, you can give me any punishment. I have no objection. RhythmWiki (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Given you are editing here on this talkpage, you do not seem to be blocked? I also cannot find an active autoblock #7337695, and I cannot find an active account block for either your current or previous username. If you still have trouble editing, try posting on your own talkpage using {{unblock-auto}} (click that link to see the details and format to use). DMacks (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Martin's sulfurane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sublimation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding speedy deletion of my page

Hello DMacks

This is Sagar Pawar, I am writing the page for Ms. N S Nappinai. with her permission. She herself wants a page so I am the writer she chose. I request you please allow me to write create the page.

Regards, Sagar

Truthspeak101, two things. First, if the subject of the page is paying you, you must disclose that fact according to the guidelines at WP:PAID. Second, as DMacks explained on your talk page, you cannot copy text from elsewhere on the Internet and paste it onto a Wikipedia page. Doing so is a violation of copyright law and will just get your page deleted again. Please review the links about copyright that DMacks left on your talk page. creffett (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Exactly as Creffett said. @Creffett: thanks for the {{tps}} while the Real World dragged me away from 'pedia! DMacks (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

So I’m a new editor, received your notice. How do I find the previous editor, to have a content discussion? MikeRit (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

When you are looking at a page, one of the items in the row of links near the top is "View history" (or similar wording). The Help:Page history help-page has a lot more detail if you need it. DMacks (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Molecular Imaging

Hi DMacks, what is a WP:ENGVAVAR? I'm a new editor learning with WikiEdu, so advice is appreciated. Thanks Pebbles1.0 (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pebbles1.0:. Welcome to wikipedia! What I wrote was It's actually a typo, which is why it appeared as a red link and made no sense:( Should have said "WP:ENGVAR". It's one of our WP:Manual of Style guidelines, one that relates to use of different nationalities' English spelling variations. DMacks (talk) 05:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Got it! Makes sense - I was considering how 'visualisation' should be spelled, learnt that there was no rule for American vs British English as long as there is consistency within the article...but obviously accidentally made a change. Thanks for the clarification and the welcome! Pebbles1.0 (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

16:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This Month in Education: September 2019

This Month in Education

Volume 8 • Issue 9 • September 2019


ContentsHeadlinesSubscribe


In This Issue

Re: SI Units

Thank you for your suggestion to use the {{convert}} template in unit conversion. I'm aware of it, but in the specific Wind power case, I suggested that 100 to 130 meters was a good rounding corresponding for 300 to 400 feet in regards to Significant figures, while keeping the value from the source 300 - 400 feet as secondary value for readers from US and a few more countries (See file: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Metric_system_adoption_map.svg).

I suggest an update with 90 to 120 meters as primary value and a template conversion to corresponding feet value.

Ws1920 (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

15:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The Residences Providence

Yes, that's an option. I'll have a look at it. Deb (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

23:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Definition of alkanes.

Why my changes are reverted about the definition? A definition must be small and precise. I put in a fundamental definition which helps understanding clearly as to why cyclic hydrocarbons arent considered as alkanes. So what was wrong about that? Vanshita poddar (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Kindly enlighten me. Vanshita poddar (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Wasilan.

Hi


I want to use Wasilan.

Thanks.

Wasilan (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)wasilan

14:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mangafodipir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adjunct (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

This Month in Education: October 2019

This Month in Education

Volume 8 • Issue 10 • October 2019


ContentsHeadlinesSubscribe


In This Issue

16:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)