This is anarchive of past discussions withUser: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 thecurrent talk page.

20:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

The description under the image explicitly says "Some dienes:", hence I think my edit was correct.The article mentions fatty acids in one of the sentences, but that doesn't mean fatty acids should be in the image which meant to represent _dienes_.The section where the image is located mentions "Cumulated dienes, Conjugated dienes, and Unconjugated dienes". So one would expect that the image contains only dienes.For the sake of unambiguity, I suggest we use the image without linoleic acid. I know that you're a professional in this field, but condradictions like that could be confusing to non-professionals. —Assaiki (talk)07:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense in the context of defining the term "diene" itself. With the content I added to the intro, I am comfortable that readers can understand that a "diene" itself can be embedded in a more complex structure.DMacks (talk)07:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. —Assaiki (talk)07:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Allyl glycidyl ether (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing toCross-linking

Diene (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing toSubstructure

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)10:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello DMacks, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on thisseasonal occasion. Spread theWikiLove by wishing another user aMerry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Pkbwcgs (talk)14:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Jeez man all I did was editManix crapix (talk)01:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Manix crapix: yes.Without citing a source. That's bad, because it's one of wikipedia's rules to do so.As others have repeatedly told you. That means you refuse to accept wikipedia rules. Either follow the rules or stop playing the game.DMacks (talk)04:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Perthis edit, what should the reaction be? I reverted it first, then undid my edit due to my unsure thinking. The links don't need to be changed, they were fine as is, and this is a controversial edit, I feel, per the current consensus on changing Czech Republic to Czechia, being that it should be automatically reverted. This user is aware of this, and has been involved in discussuons on this, yet did not use an edit summary, and marked the edit as minor. I'm confused on what the thinking is on edits like these and how to proceed. -R9tgokunks⭕04:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

These two use-cases seem to be in titles of external resource, so we should use what they use. No matter what we think of a reference (fact vs fiction, compliance or breaking of house style, etc), we always just cite its title as-is.DMacks (talk)04:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey DMacks! Today I added a citation to the "Naming firm" page on Wikipedia, inserting a reference to one of the naming industry's most important guides to name development published by Catchword (at which I'm a partner). There's considerable information in the Guide related to trademark screening and, for that reason, I thought it would make sense to add a link to the Guide, at a point in the page content specific to trademark screening. I see that the citation has been removed and I'm just wondering if you could provide me with some guidance on how to modify the reference, if it's violating a Wikipedia rule or otherwise not meeting a Wikipedia requirement. I see that at least one other industry naming guide (published by Igor) is included in the citations, so I assumed that another citation to a relevant piece of information would be acceptable.

Thanks!

Mark— Precedingunsigned comment added byMarkskoultchi (talk •contribs)16:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

From an outsider's perspective, here is someoneposting a link to their own site claiming that their own site is a most-important reference. On its face, that looks fairly presumtuous and merely an attempt to "me too"promote your site via link-farming. Those bluelinked terms go to a few wikipedia guidelines/policies of relevance.

If there are other problematic links, the solution to that problem is to reduce not add even more. Igor appears to be a notable organization (WP:CORP), suggesting its publications might bereliable as a reference. It wasn't clear from your edit thatCatchword (company) was the underlying publisher. At appears it is a notable organization also (though its article isvery weak in that regard), so its publications might be reliable also.DMacks (talk)17:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks DMacks. It appears the citation has been added back, and thanks for that. Apologies if the original edit wasn't clear enough. Catchword is indeed a reliable naming source. The agency has a #1 ranking worldwide on Clutch.co, a leading, client-driven agency review platform. If interested, please see here:https://clutch.co/agencies/naming/research I suppose any link to a commercial website could be considered promotional on some level, since the link drives people to the site, but this publication, Creating the Perfect Name, is truly of relevance and value to anyone viewing this Naming Firm page on Wikipedia, and it's been downloaded countless times by marketers and business professionals looking for gratis advice on brand name development.

I'm curious though: what do you mean when you say the organization's article is very weak? Is there something we can do to strengthen it??

Thanks again!— Precedingunsigned comment added byMarkskoultchi (talk •contribs)21:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

this page is ok to have nothing on it so don't restore again.

--86.186.60.175 (talk)09:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

users are not welcome to change others' talk page comments (only the original author or the user whose talk page it is).DMacks (talk)16:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

But DMacks, when the original IP user removed content from its talk page, youreverted it and subsequently pulled TP access. I've been observing this LTA for some time now and have come to the realization that these silly talk page edit wars generally aren't worth the trouble.Sro23 (talk)06:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I was treating it as a seeminly fertile honeypot. But this LTA isn't one of my pets, so I'll defer to how you think they should be handled/ignored.DMacks (talk)06:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

18:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Please see note on your DYK review.Yoninah (talk)23:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Metallophilic interaction (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing toElement andHeavy metal

Aurophilicity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing toElement

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)09:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

17:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I just was adding more info. Why did you do that?— Precedingunsigned comment added byKhoin wiki (talk •contribs)20:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I hae no idea what specific edit you are talking about. But in general,verifiability andability to write on-topic and in clear English are baseline skills.DMacks (talk)21:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey,DMacks. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of theWikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!A 10 fireplaneImform me16:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

20:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The review atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Hilda Ranscombe was considered for promotion, but the promoter raised some questions. I am willing to follow-up if you're still interested. Thanks.Flibirigit (talk)18:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, it's been 2 weeks since I pinged you atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Hilda Ranscombe. Are you coming back to the review, or should we call for a new reviewer?Yoninah (talk)22:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

On22 January 2019,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleAllyl glycidyl ether, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... thatallyl glycidyl ether can be converted to three different types ofpolymers by changing the polymerization conditions? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Allyl glycidyl ether. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,Allyl glycidyl ether), and it may be added tothe statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on theDid you know talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle}00:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)09:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

18:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

17:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

18:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

23:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi DMacks,

I would appreciate if you did not delete my DOB changes for Camille Rowe unnecessarily. The source I provide is the offical register of businesses in the United Kingdom, which clearly shows her birthday as being in January 1986. This cannot be argued. Any date showing 1990 on the internet is incorrect. Companies House (I'll provide the link below) cannot be lied to and her company is Finger Monkey Ltd (after her Instagram account) with all the relevant addresses and names provided to Companies House - please see source herehttps://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09607534/persons-with-significant-control

As for the specific day in January, it is well publicised that her birthday is January 7. This is not something that can be easily cited as social media links are not enough to support it. You can see for yourself on her own social medias and other peoples that her birthday is on January 7. Please do not delete sources which provide clear evidence.

Thank you.— Precedingunsigned comment added byBrownely2222 (talk •contribs)21:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP is very explicit about sourcing requirements for biographical details. It may well be that we need to leave out details, even ones that everyone knows and posts about, if noone can actually find a reliable cite for it. People lie on legal documents all the time. In fact, actual court transcripts areexplicitly forbidden to be used as sources for any factual claim other than "someoneclaims something. That's the way wikipedia is I guess...it's an encyclopedia not a hive-mind or social/rumor collection. You'll just get blocked soon if you keep adding uncited material and wikipedia will keep on without you.DMacks (talk)04:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Greetings "DMacks",

Please feel free to Google J.J. Sedelmaier Productions, Inc. I feel you will consider this company worthy of recognition in Wikipedia as animation studio of note.

Thanks for your diligence ! Cheers— Precedingunsigned comment added byJ.J. Sedelmaiert (talk •contribs)02:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry,WP:CORP is the standard, not my google-skills.DMacks (talk)20:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I've also gone ahead and blocked this account of yours, as you appear to be usingUser:Jjsedelmaier as well, against ourWP:SOCK account policy. Please restrict yourself to a single account (I left available the one that was older and had more edits performed).DMacks (talk)20:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation is planning aglobal consultation about communication. The goal is to bring Wikimedians and wiki-minded people together to improve tools for communication.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis, whatever their experience, their skills or their devices.

We are looking for input from as many different parts of the Wikimedia community as possible. It will come from multiple projects, in multiple languages, and with multiple perspectives.

We are currently planning the consultation. We need your help.

We need volunteers to help talk to their communities or user groups.

You can help by hosting a discussion at your wiki. Here's what to do:

1. First,sign up your group here.
2. Next, create a page (or a section on a Village pump, or an e-mail thread – whatever is natural for your group) to collect information from other people in your group. This is not a vote or decision-making discussion: we are just collecting feedback.
3. Then ask people what they think about communication processes. We want to hear stories and other information about how people communicate with each other on and off wiki. Please consider asking these five questions:
   1. When you want to discuss a topic with your community, what tools work for you, and what problems block you?
   2. What about talk pages works for newcomers, and what blocks them?
   3. What do others struggle with in your community about talk pages?
   4. What do you wish you could do on talk pages, but can't due to the technical limitations?
   5. What are the important aspects of a "wiki discussion"?
4. Finally, please go toTalk pages consultation 2019 on Mediawiki.org and report what you learned from your group. Please include links if the discussion is available to the public.

You can also help build the list of the many different ways people talk to each other.

Not all groups active on wikis or around wikis use the same way to discuss things: it can happen on wiki, on social networks, through external tools... Tell ushow your group communicates.

You can read more aboutthe overall process on mediawiki.org. If you have questions or ideas, you canleave feedback about the consultation process in the language you prefer.

Thank you! We're looking forward to talking with you.

Trizek (WMF)15:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

21:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Please remove talk page access fromUser talk:109.151.14.152. Nothing good is coming from that IP.(I am notwatching this page, so pleaseping me if you want my attention.)Chris Troutman (talk)15:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: I instead semi'ed it. One of the hallmarks of this LTA is that lots of their IPs edit each others' talkpages, not just each editing their own one.DMacks (talk)15:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

16:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. About the "{{cite...}}" templates in refs. I don't remove them for no reason, but when I have to fix their contents, e.g. by providing full author, journal, and page information (as in the case of those refs inethylene dione) I definitely have the "right" and "duty" to do so.
The "cite" templates were a TERRIBLY BAD idea. They have many disadvantages and no advantages at all.

• They are MUCH harder to create and edit than the plain refs.
• The format that they generate, "27 (15) 31" instead of "volume 27, issue 15, page 31" is not meaningful to readers who are not academics or professional researchers. Like the practice of abbreviating journal names beyond recognition, it was invented by publishers of paper journals to save space, a very expensive resource for them. That is not a concern for Wikipedia; clarity for general readers is.
• In the code, they are roughly twice as long as the plain version. That makes it hard also to edit the text around them.
• Using the wrong keyword for a parameter may produce very wrong results, without warning. (Try <ref>{{cite book|title=Foo|issue=21}}</ref>
• They cannot easily handle non-standard situations, such as journals that refer to articles by number instead of page numbers. Even when they do have options for such situations, editors must read the template documentation to find them.
• And, like most complicated templates, they add another ton of complexity to the "language" that new editors must learn in order to edit Wikipedia -- which is the only reason I can think of for why the number of editors has been shrinking for a decade.

Novice editors, who do not know the usual visible format for Wikipedia refs, can be excused to use the cite template generator to generate refs. Those who know what the refs should look like have no excuse for using them.
It is understandable that, to reduce conflicts, editors should not remove "cite" templates just for the sake of it. But please let's work to make Wikipedia better, for reader and editors alike, by NOT using those templates for new refs, and NOT changing refs that are already in good plain format to use them.
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk)16:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

There are definite disadvantages to the template, as you note. But there are also advtanges in that they automatically provide consistent formatting and avoid mis-understanding what different fields mean.WP:CITEVAR is pretty unambiguous that neither form is "the right one" (and indeed there are third and maybe even fourth options for formatting too). And for that reason, your preference is not generally accepted as a compelling reason to change. I find zero personal benefit to hand-coded ref formatting as a reader (manually written refs often omit useful fields and do not use consistent formatting so it's harder for me to look up and harder for me to parse visually) or as an editor (I have to remember how to format and what order to write things). Besides just "any standard format is ok" as a wikipedia site-wide standard, the Chemistry wikiproject has expressed apreference for using the cite templates in its MOS for chemistry articles.

Regarding reading the terse formatting,if one uses templates, the fields are tagged internally andexported as COinS, so readers can import directly into ref databases. I don't personally do that, but it means someone could write a tool or gadget to display refs formatted any other way at all (APA, ACS, MLA, arbitrary visible tokens like "volume", "issue", etc.). I haven't heard of anyone working on that sort of project, so there would be one way you could help readers who you feel are unable to understand the{{cite}} formats rather than fighting what is probably a losing battle for discarding them altogether.

Given how poorly (amount, not style) many new editors cite things, I don't think "I can't figure out the cite template, heck with this altogether" is a major thought process. Instead, we have visual editor and a bunch of other tools that hide lots of the wiki syntax even more deeply than just this template. You should take these sorts of concerns to centralize WP discussion area, since you are pushing against multiple deeply ingrained consensus standards.

And finally you obviously know about edit-summaries and their importance for communicating among editors. At least some of my annoyance at seeing the change could have been reduced if you actually noted you were making this change and why.DMacks (talk)17:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

You are Most Welcome Sir.

Fylindfotberserk (talk)14:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dmack, could I trouble you to look atLitRPG and perhaps protect it for a month or two? Someone is hacking big chunks out of the entry without attempting to discuss why in the talk page. Thanks.JimHolden (talk)10:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I overlooked this talkpage message. I semi'ed the article 1 year. So...I guess we'll have this conversation again in Spring'20? Sigh.DMacks (talk)15:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

19:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

19:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Please stop yourdisruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an articlecontent dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or thearticle's talk page, and seekconsensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia'sdispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of therelevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia'sAdministrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may beblocked from editing.Not only do you not remotely have the Wikipedia standing for me to take you seriously, it would seem from your talk page that you have a history of making incompetent rollbacks and harebrained accusations. I have indeed taken Wikipedia's standards into account, but in the cases of many quotations, people have put punctuation outside even when it logically belongs inside, or when it was part of the original quote. Notice how this fits the Wikipedia standard, which is aptly called "logical" quotations. I have not gone back and forth with other editors re-editing the same pages, but rather have settled things on talk pages when fitting. Further, for minor copy edits like moving punctuation, comments are often unnecessary. Perhaps research a topic more before speaking on it. You describe yourself as pedantic on your user page, but I believe that that's too generous.Jondr21 (talk)15:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I actually did leave untouched the ones to direct quotations. Good luck with your working agaonst MOS consensus for other cases. Feel free to file atWP:ANI if you are so inclined.DMacks (talk)

You need to read the text as it's translated Islamic Persian writings.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam#The_Chosen_One

Before removing the source, you might want to read it FIRST!!!!— Precedingunsigned comment added by98.181.168.42 (talk)04:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I see you posting this same concept on multiple pages and it's being rejected by many editors for many reasons. You should stop and getWP:CONSENSUS that it belongs...somewhere...before continuing. He is not "the chosen one" (statement of fact), but instead is considered according to some text to be that. Why is this text of any authentic value? What is it a translation of that is considered a major or sacred text? SeeWP:SECONDARY for one way of possibly getting support that this is a usable idea.DMacks (talk)04:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Not what I was told by:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pastychomper She told me to place EXACTLY what I did inAdam. With sources. I did just that only to have it removed by you. You people continue to play God on Wikipedia. You're PATHETIC. I'm done trying. You people are delusional.AND Why did you not read that the translation is from SCHOLARS of the Islamic sect. They (3) of them translated this together. It's not my problem to explain anything other than that as you should have read whom the author was as well as why ADAM is THE CHOSEN ONE, The Son of Man, He is Michael the Archangel. But what would you know... SEE ya. I'm done trying. #More Absurdities from wiki editors who play god and are clueless to TRUTH as you're blinded by the craftiness of man. HE IS Whom Christ is speaking to in Isaiah 42 YOU MORON. HIS ELECT ONE (Elect ONE also means CHOSEN ONE genius) Also found in Book of Enoch Chapter 61 whom is the PRINCE of his own kingdom. The only prince of a future kingdom? A D A M from the old testament you retard.— Precedingunsigned comment added by98.181.168.42 (talk)04:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Pastychomper is welcome to jump in here and support you if they choose, but I do not see where that editor has written what you say. Regardless, according to the translation and others I have read of this passage, it could just as easily be a description, not a strict appelation. By playing capitalization games, you are choosing what to emphasize. So as I said, I think you need a secondary source that this is a formal appelation. Your dwelling on your own knowlege of what is TRUTH and your continued personal attacks on those who disagree with that are not compatible with how things work here on Wikipedia. Many editors have noted this as well as other problematic aspects of your behavior as well. I think you should probably stop posting here, as you'll soon be blocked for this continued violation ofWP:NPA.DMacks (talk)05:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, did you instead meanUser:PamD, who specifically advised you "with good sources"? As everyone is saying, we dispute that you have a good source..."to place EXACTLY what I did" (your own emphasis that several feel is the exact problem).DMacks (talk)05:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The source is from 3 ISLAMIC PROFESSORS at a UNIVERSITY whom translated the Persian text. I would say that was a GOOD SOURCE. Book is also at CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY. That about sums it up for GOOD SOURCE.— Precedingunsigned comment added by98.181.168.42 (talk)05:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Obviously you fully believe this to be a good source, but others are not convinced no matter how many times you say it.WP:CONSENSUS means you can't go ahead "knowing you are right" on your own.DMacks (talk)05:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The really funny thing is I have many pages that I have edited under another user name. LOL Who cares if I ever get to "edit" another page with this IP address. LMAO!— Precedingunsigned comment added by98.181.168.42 (talk)05:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

You guys jump on the bandwagon with each other. #brown nose.— Precedingunsigned comment added by98.181.168.42 (talk)05:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I have made the point and found the point to show that Adam in the islamic language for what Adam did while on earth that HE is the Chosen One. 2nd source:https://www.academia.edu/7170404/Shaggy_or_Shaved (Scroll down to page 12) Adam was given the honorary name of "Adam-I-Safi" meaning: THE CHOSEN ONE.

3rd source:https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Religion_of_God/The_word_Allah

4th source:https://books.google.com/books?id=khgaCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=adam-i,safi&source=bl&ots=FGLRnuSpVL&sig=ACfU3U2JFwduG30_wvXwIi2AOcYjrO0mvA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiCoZjgzZjhAhUtHDQIHSGMA_EQ6AEwAnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=adam-i%2Csafi&f=false

5th source:https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ijt/07-2_056.pdf Bottom of page 57: "Adam was God's Chosen one "Adam-Safi"

I apologize for being rude. Can you please add this because I will be removed from someone if I try.Thank you

— Precedingunsigned comment added by98.181.168.42 (talk)17:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)