Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Jump to content

User talk:DMacks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Erich Clar page

[edit]

I want to include a synthetic reaction that is known as Clar's reaction. It is of a certain class of cyclic ketones that condense with themselves when heated to 400 C in a mixture of zinc dust and zinc chloride.

I will add references and a description of what it is used for in synthesizing new polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

I need help

[edit]

It’s been 30 days and I’ve made 658 edits (well over the expected amount) and I still can’t edit extended confirmed articles. What do I do? Hopefulgratitude (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. Maybe give it another day or so? You're right at the 30-day mark less than an hour to spare, so you might have been just under at the time. DMacks (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, thank you. Hopefulgratitude (talk) 04:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-34

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Usenet

[edit]

[4] Could you lose these edits, thanks. ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done DMacks (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In re: Elliot Page Talk page restrictions

[edit]

We have long followed and respected your work at WP. We have the appended general and specific requests to make, regarding the article title referenced.

_____

1, In general, we would suggest that it is counter to WP's historical and philosophical raison d'être, to so fully restrict Talk page engagement, that non-registered editors cannot even post requests for article changes. This essentially prohibits, at the given article, a class editors from directly participating with that article's fellow editors. Notably, the class of editors excluded (the non-registered) were consciously and consistently included, beginning with the WP founders, to allow editing very similarly entitled as that of the registered. The baby needs not go out with the bath water. Edits from good non-registered editors need not be excluded alongside vandalism.

I suggest that the article might retain its editing restrictions, but that the Talk page should allow, at least, for non-registered/logging editors to post direct requests for article changes to their article peers. (Yes, we are aware that there is a mechanism to suggest article changes outside of the article's Talk page. But those further clicks take the request outside of the direct review and reflection of a given article's editors and readers, separating parties with similar interests, and convoluting simple question like, "Has this edit been reuested before?".)

_____

2, Regarding the following sentence at the Page article (which opens its paragraph, and is followed by two citations):

On November 9, 2017, it was announced that Page had been cast in the main role of Vanya/Viktor Hargreeves in the Netflix superhero series The Umbrella Academy.

Note, this reflects no proposed change to the wikilink destination; it is only a proposed change to its markup piping/presentation.

Justification: Having reviewed the sentence and its two supporting citations, one must conclude that the sentence is both historically inaccurate, and inccurate to its stated sources. The sources presented make no mention of the Viktor character, only the Vanya; thus, the current presentation confounds an early decision in the series with later developments in the series design and production. For historical accuracy, the article should report only what the citations report—that on that 2017 date, Page was cast in the role of Vanya (as the two citations provided indicate no perception on the part of the series writers/showrunner, in that moment, of the character evolving as it eventually would). Then, further on, as the role evolved, the second character name should be introduced, with that relevant date (with citations reporting that change in series design and related casting).

Note, no motivation with regard to gender issues should be perceived here. This edit is simply aimed at WP:VERIFY compliance, and the historical accuracy of the prose—that the WP article text says what the sources say, and accurately reflects the history of the series as it occurred.

_____

Thank you for your attention to these general and specific requests. Again, I come to you out of continuing respect for your work here, and believing, pragmatically, that a change in the article and its editing status will only take place if suggested by such a one as yourself. (Please feel free to edit/adapt my requests, in any way you see fit.) With kind regard,

98.193.42.97 (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP! I will copy your edit-request to the talk-page, as I am not familiar enough with the topic to know wheher it is correct. Regarding protection, unfortunately that specific talk-page has a years'-long history of trolling and other abuse, bad enough that nothing short of semi-protection could solve it. I had tried protecting it for just a few days back in 2020 when there was an acute problem, but it kept re-occcuring after my protection expired, so longer protections have been added as each expires and the problem keeps re-re-occurring (now a total of five admins have taken that action there). DMacks (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-35

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trehalosamine

[edit]

Hello DMacks, Thank you very much for your revision about the topic of Trehalosamine that I (Nat comp 4) created before. I am not good at editing Wikipedia, and your efforts make this article much better. I would like to talk to you, however, about two things. The first, the structures of 3-trehalosamine and 4-trehalosamine are mixed up. Please check and revise it. The second, some specialist of sugar told me before that the trehalosamine structures you put this time are ambiguous to show alfa-alfa-1,1 bond structure and should be avoided to use. The structure seems somewhat like alfa-beta-1,1 bond although this kind of trehalose structure are sometimes seen in the scientific papers. Therefore, I put the previous version of the structure. I am not a specialist of sugar 3D structure and if you are in the field much deeply than me, I do not persist in it. Thank you for your kind consideration. Nat comp 4 (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! I'm an organic person but sugars are not my speciality. I did indeed have a mismatch between the images vs captions. Fixed--good catch!
These images do not agree with alpha,beta. The two rings have the same conformation as each other and the same array of specific stereochemical details as each other. Because they match, it's not "one of each" alpha vs beta. It's true that one of those bonds is "up" instead of "down", but that's because the whole ring is turned over. A concern with the diagram I replaced was that those bonds were not as clearly in any particular direction (not equatorial but not fully axial either). From the monosaccharide nomenclature article:
It's not geometrically correct that the two bonds off that linking oxygen are linear to each other, but that helps keep the two rings in a normal alignment on the screen. I do like that "bird in flight" style you have (with the angle between those bonds), but the actual 3D geometry of trehalose is even more complicated.
So I simply matched the images in c:Category:Trehalose and somewhat followed the Haworth projection (where atomic geometry is not a focus). DMacks (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your quick response and detailed explanation. I am satisfied. I respect your kind efforts in Wikipedia. Nat comp 4 (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]