User talk:DMacks/Archive 44

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources is headlined "Primary does not mean bad". and goes on to say: "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher. Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." By the way, chemical energy is a chemistry-, not a medicine-related topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution#Citing_yourself: confirms that my citations were perfectly fine. It says: "You may cite your own publications just as you would cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you are regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia." The publication is in a respectable, peer-reviewed scientific journal, directly addresses the question, and I am a world expert in chemical energy while biology and biochemistry textbook authors are not. Klaus Schmidt-Rohr (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Primary doesn't mean bad, but it also doesn't mean a single example of it can overturn a massive amount of other primary/secondary. What you cited is an explanatory note, so it doesn't have the power of a more-authoritative guideline (

due weight vs other sources. DMacks (talk

) 17:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The reasons for reversion are given on the article talk page. In particular, why the current Gold book definition is unacceptable is detailed there. Petergans (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

You need a cite to overcome a cite, not a personal assertion. DMacks (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

In principle, I agree, but what is needed in this instance is a correction, done by an expert, to the IUPAC page. Once that has been done it may be cited in WP. Petergans (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Now that you have identified the chronology, please double-check that you don't jump the gun by changing the article before IUPAC does. Go lean on IUPAC. WP by site policy cannot lead the charge ahead of citeable reliable sources, and can lead to editors being blocked altogether for contradicting reliable sources without having actual sources to support the alternate position. DMacks (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

17:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I just figured out what happened to Edgar. I realize that messing with elections sounds pretty serious. He was exclusively an agent for good as Edgar181. A big loss for the chemistry project. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah:( Definitely unexpected and disappointing IMO. DMacks (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

19:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey, i got back to you on the antifrogman article on my talk. - AH (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

15:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

First I would like to state that the book is released and has been for a couple of years. Evidence being its store page on Etsy: The Triflers Ebook. Don't forget the hardcover and paperback editions on Lulu.com. Though I don't have exact sales numbers I will like to point out that the author under his pen name Mumkey Jones runs a successful Youtube channel, of 300,000 Subscribers. Though for transparency he has much lost of that subscriber account due to conflicts with Youtube, and now only has 150K but that doesn't matter since the book was released far before said conflicts. He has collaborated with respected and well-known YouTubers with cult followings such as Emplemon and Rusty Cage. Review wise the book averages 4.34 stars on good reads with 59% out of the 80 reviews/ratings being 5 stars.

I'll be reverting your erasing of my addition to the article, I hope I have understandably explained how The Triflers is a notable inclusion to the contents of the article.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34371109-the-triflers

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilly-of-the-Bracken (talk • contribs) 23:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

See

WP:WTAF. DMacks (talk

) 03:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

From the page history it looks like you've been maintaining the Resonance article. I wanted to give you a heads up that I'm working on a rewrite of that article over in my sandbox and figured I'd give you a chance to preview it before making big changes to the actual page. As of today I think the simple harmonic oscillator section and the RLC circuit section are about ready to drop onto the actual page. The linear systems section is close, though I'd like to add a specific example to it later.

Resonance (Error9312 sandbox)

The draft has a rough outline of the other content I plan to include as well as some notes in italics. So far it's light on sources and graphics.

Error9312 (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

About your recent reversions re: "Penis of the Plains" (sic), the purpose of my edits was not to censor the article due to content, in spite of your claims to the contrary. The purpose was to remove non-notable trivia from the article, per

I mentioned NOTCENSORED when undoing a removal whose edit-summary indicated that the reason for removal was that the content was vulgar/obscene/etc. I did not mention it when undoing your edit, as you did not mention that specific concern. Instead, this specific bit of content has been debated for 11 years, and the constant back-and-forth editing is a poor substitute for a talk-page discussion that was already started. WP is not a vote or about personal knowledge, but instead a discussion based on sources and content guidelines is the way to go. I'll check the talkpage later today. DMacks (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You're right. It wasn't you who mentioned WP:NOTCENSORED when reverting one of my edits. I had you confused with another editor. Nonetheless, the content in question is still an issue of notability and not censorship. Greggens (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Please explain your 3 posts [34] [35] [36] that I don't understand? I [37] already directed the OP to the area rule article and I don't see why you calculate Mach 13.25. DroneB (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

First, I was noting that "Whitcomb area rule" was directly linkable. I didn't notice that it was a redirect to the simple-named "area rule" you later advised the OP to see. Sorry about that! I usually try to include links along the way as I discuss instead of later instructing where to look (habit from editing articles I guess). Second, Mach 13.25 is the vector addition of 53 cars at Mach 0.25 each. I stopped at that point because car 54 is missing, according to the Car 54, Where Are You? TV program--that's where my "the next Mach 0.25 increment is missing" text links. Third, as any scientist, I can wave my hands to make complications, like combined effects or complications of scale, simply go away by assuming "everything is as simple as a first approximation" or "let's only think about one factor for now". That's why I linked my final comment to Spherical cow. DMacks (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

First, my response that directed the OP to area rule article came before your responses and not "later" as you suppose. Second, the Quiz question specified 4 cars not 54. That number has no relevance apart from your retention of an obscure American TV program aired some 57 years ago. Third, my opinion is that irresponsible comments added at the Ref. Desks should be kept in small text. It's not too late for you to make that adjustment if you so choose. DroneB (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

"Later advised" was within the timeline of your own message itself (you talked about a topic by one name, and then later in that same message of yours advised OP to read a page that was on that topic but not quite same name). Because of the way I read your message, I misread that it was the same ultimate target article when I later posted my response. I have small'ed my attempt at humor. You are welcome to your opinion obviously. DMacks (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

18:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Sir, I had reverted the changes in Date of Birth made by an IP user '157.39.112.2' in Payal Rajput Page, Just because in both sources provided by the IP user has a clear disclaimer at the end of the article 'No Deccan Chronicle journalist was involved in creating this content. The group also takes no responsibility for this content" and 'No Asian Age journalist was involved in creating this content. The group also takes no responsibility for this content.'. So, I took them as unreliable for change in date of birth. Hence, I had reverted those edits by IP user . I saw your notes in edit summary, So I thought, I should share the reason behind reverting those edits. Thanks Divyam Seth (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the followup. What you found does seem concerning. The two refs we have are the same content just in different imprints of the same publisher's family of news sites. Deccan Chronicle seems to be considered a generally reliable source. It sounds here like they are just parroting a press release or other content supplied by some uncited sources? It's better than our previous situation, where our content wasn't cited at all. I'll put a tag there asking for a better ref. If you think it's bad enough that we should say nothing rather than this content cited to an uncertain-reliability source, or have any other source for any alternate birthday, we can figure out how go further. DMacks (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

16:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi DMacks,

I have seen User:Tiven2240 is bullying me on different wikipedia. i.e. Marathi, English, Wikimedia, Wiki Data. Also I got message he suggested my name to BAN mentioning, I'm doing paid edits. I already conveyed this to Marathi Wikipedia Bureaucrat User:अभय नातू, User:V.narsikar about this. This has all started with Article in Marathi Wikipedia [| योगेश दत्तात्रय गोसावी ]. He called me sock-puppet of someone. I had edited and updated article with fresh references and if you could check it neatly its clearly written in forms accepted by Wikipedia Norms also I have seen and check if he fits in

Sunita — Preceding unsigned comment added by सुनीता पडबिद्री (talk • contribs) 13:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

You and your organization have a long history of abusing several different sites on the Wikimedia/Wikipedia realm: violating their Terms of Service and other policies. That is not acceptable. It no longer matters whether it is "you personally" or different individuals working in the same way. You and your edits are no longer welcome here and will be instantly blocked across all sites every time you pop up with a new account. Repeatedly creating new accounts when old ones get blocked is just one of the ways you are violating our policies. DMacks (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems another account created User:AnishJog. Kindly take appropriate actions --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 04:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

On it. Could you pleaes use {{

noping}} or some variant when talking about an account? The link is easier for me to follow than having to cut'n'paste:) DMacks (talk

) 05:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi I've seen you have recently deleted article which has been submitted for creation. I want to mention few things as I guess you haven't checked it neatly before proceed for deletion! First I didn't understood what is Xwiki Spam and Sockpuppet as I neither know any such person name Ivan or nor I've ever heard or connected to such person. About article I found it passes WP:Author and WP:Director so I've putten request for creation as sources I found was genuine and reliable as per WIKI Rules, which is is of Times Of India and many reliable sources and the person in article has seem to be got award from times group. If you found him non reliable kindly give me reason as well. Sharing you again a link of his Award News kindly see neatly then decide apart it was well written not in any kind of advertisement or not for any publicity all things mentioned was having Valid references and was on Digital News media!!! I request again kindly rethink on your decision and check this link once.... ^[1] AnishJog (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Once it becomes a pile of sock-puppetry evidence, I do not care about the article's content. Abusing our servers cannot be tolerated. DMacks (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

20:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Close Wikipedia and copyright

 Hello Chemistry Online1, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here. Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research. Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste. If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow. Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

DMacks. Thanks for your guidance. Please we should add these organic compounds (Nigellicine , Nigellidine , Nigellimine, Carvacrol , α- Hederin , Thymol , Thymoquinone , Dithymoquinone ,thymohydroquinone )into page of Nigella sativa or black seed.If you have proper education in chemistry especially in "organic chemistry "then you will understand. I respect the senior editors but page of Nigella sativa is missing organic compounds.Thousands research papers of journals of high impact factor carrying information about Nigella sativa. But if you see page of Nigella sativa, it seems an agricultural or forestry page. If you don't mind may I ask your specialization in chemistry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemistry Online1 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

DMacks Please update your knowledge. Always go for research and read publications. Now Wikipedia needs updated persons. I edited the page Nigella sativa with that reference which was already mentioned there. For support of that reference I am giving you this link, please visit this site. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=182.10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemistry Online1 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)