Jump to content

User talk:DMacks/Archive 46

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48→Archive 50

Coactive nonmetals and halogens

G’day DMacks

I write to gauge your thoughts about a proposal to change the nonmetal categories appearing in our periodic table from {reactive nonmetals} and {noble gases} to {coactive nonmetals} {halogen nonmetals} and {noble gases}

thank you, Sandbh (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

*     *     *

Context. There has been some discussion about nonmetal categories at WP:ELEMENTS.

I suspect most active members of that project (including me) would agree to divide the reactive nonmetals i.e. the nonmetals other than the noble gases, into two relatively clear and self-descriptive categories. However, since the WP periodic table was created, we haven't found a good way of doing this.

I caveat the expression "relatively clear" by what we say in our periodic table article:

"Placing elements into categories and subcategories based just on shared properties is imperfect. There is a large disparity of properties within each category with notable overlaps at the boundaries, as is the case with most classification schemes."

That said, didactically speaking, the use of "natural" classes or clusters to organise information supports content processing.

In Wikipedia history, the categories of "other nonmetals" and halogens are the two most enduring nonmetal categories used in our periodic table. That was until we started complaining about what a non-informative category name "other nonmetals" was.

Now, the halogen category is consistent with the traditional aspect of teaching the periodic table by contrasting the alkali metals with the halogens.

Long story short, we don’t currently have a halogen category because we weren't able to satisfactorily characterise the other nonmetals as something other than {other nonmetals}. So we decided that they and the halogen nonmetals would collectively be the reactive nonmetals.

Developments. A couple of articles in the peer-reviewed literature have prompted me to revisit this question. The first is "Metals are not the only catalysts", in Nature. The second is "Organising the metals and nonmetals", in Foundations of Chemistry (disclaimer: 1, authored by me; 2, the scheme I propose is not the same as that in this article).

The upshot is that the other nonmetals can be characterised by their:

  1. tendency to form covalent or polymeric compounds;
  2. prominent biological roles;
  3. proclivity to catenate i.e. form chains or rings;
  4. multiple vertical, horizontal and diagonal relationships;
  5. uses in, or as, combustion and explosives;
  6. uses in organocatalysis; and
  7. dualistic Jekyll (#2) and Hyde (#5) behaviours

The first six properties of the nonmetals in this part of the periodic table are documented in the literature. #7 is an observation by me.

Coactive. In light of properties 1, 3, 4 and 6, I suggest the term "coactive nonmetals" would be a good way of referring to the other nonmetals. The remaining nonmetals (F, Cl, Br, I) then become the halogen nonmetals, thus restoring the pre-eminence of this category. Here, we show astatine as a post-transition metal since condensed astatine is expected to be a full-fledged FCC metal.

"Coactive" means, "acting in concert; acting or taking place together". That seems like a good adjective wrt the covalent compounds of H, C, N, O, P, S and Se. For their polymeric compounds, e.g. of H, N, O or S, the connection is to the linked nature of their repeating structural units. That is how the literature tends to deal with the nonmetals, except that it has no common term for the first category. There is also the catalytic conation of "coactive".

The literature. Bear in mind the expression coactive nonmetals is not found in the literature.

That said, the complementary term "coactive metal" is found in literature, in the following senses:

  • "…adding a coactive metal (such as Pt, Ir, or Rh metal)"
  • "The same set of experiments was performed in presence of other co-active metal ions Fe +2, Fe +3, Co +2, Ni +2, Mn +2, Cd +2, Ca +2, Mg +2…".
  • "It is of great interest and challenging to improve new catalysts that consist of any of those components and new active metal component (ie co-active metal, promoter)."

There are several other references in the literature to "co-active" elements, materials or substances, including manganese, iron, nickel, cobalt and plutonium.

In the endeavours by WP:ELEMENTS to nail the other nonmetals, we will have now gone full circle from the original {other nonmetals and halogens} → {polyatomic nonmetals and diatomic nonmetals} → {reactive nonmetals}. Now we have a putative categorisation scheme for going from {reactive nonmetals} → {coactive nonmetals} and {halogen nonmetals} that would fulfil the worthy intentions of our predecessors.

Question: Is "coactive nonmetal" a neologism or is it a descriptive phrase, c.f. "coactive metal"? If there are coactive metals does this suggest there are coactive nonmetals? The other nonmetals category is well enough seen in the literature. The covalent-polymeric, biological, catenative, interlinked, combustive/explosive, and organocatalytic properties of the nonmetals in this part of the periodic table are documented in the literature. Historically, and as noted, the "other nonmetals" category is the most enduring nonmetal category used in the Wikipedia periodic table, until we started complaining about what a non-informative category name this was. Do we now have enough content, in pursuit of a better encyclopedia, to support a change back to a binary categorisation of the nonmetals as coactive (formerly other) nonmetals, and halogen nonmetals? ♦

Hi Sandbh! I think "coactive nonmetal" is a neologism. I am not sure even "coactive metal" is a well-defined term based on the elements themselves. At least some of these uses sound like they are related to the reaction context. For example, the last one (doi:0.4186/ej.2019.23.5.169?) talks about catalytically-active materials, and the addition of another component to something with known activity. The text seems be saying that the additive doesn't just change the structural nature of the original catalyst, but instead has some activity itself. So it's not the periodic-table placement or element iself, but instead 'active' in a specific chemical example. DMacks (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey DMacks! Been a long time. The situation is a bit of a conundrum. By rights we should show an other nonmetals category since that is the most popular categorisation in the literature. That said, we have a better descriptive term. And our WP:NEO policy can accomodate this:

"In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title."

On the first article, we even have an article on organocatalysis, which refers to, "a form of catalysis, whereby the rate of a chemical reaction is increased by an organic catalyst referred to as an "organocatalyst" consisting of carbon, hydrogen, sulfur and "other nonmetal" ^_^ elements found in organic compounds". So that aspect of the properties of the elements found in this part of the periodic table doesn't concern me.

It does not seem "right" to me, in the sense of a better encyclopedia, that all the properties involved are set out in the literature, and there is a popular (relatively-speaking) non-descriptive category name, when there is a better, more descriptive adjective for the nonmetals involved. I don't see how replacing a non-descriptive adjective with a descriptive adjective would be a show-stopping violate WP policy. Sandbh (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with the "organocatalysis" comments...that term is exactly used in literature to mean what we say (for example, doi:10.1038/nature07367), so it's not a lay-language/descriptive phrase we created here. I'm instead concerned that you are proposing to use the term "active" in a way that is neither very descriptive nor supported by literature. I would love to have an affirmative term rather than "other", which sounds like it's just the grab-bag of what doesn't have any other unifying theme ("everything that isn't something else in particular"). But it sounds like that really is the term that is used, so we should just go with it and can use the article to discuss what actual commonalities exist. DMacks (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

On organocatalysis, usage in same is one shared attribute of the nonmetals in question. My intent was to note we have an article on that topic, mentioning the use of C, H, S and other nonmetals found in organic compounds, to this end, that was all.

I agree with your sentiment regarding other nonmetals. That said, a completely generic term(?), it seems to me, would be pre-halogen nonmetals, as that is what they are, no more no less. Sandbh (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This Month in Education: August 2020

This Month in Education

Volume 9 • Issue 8 • August 2020

Contents • Headlines • Subscribe

In This Issuse

Tech News: 2020-35

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 25 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 26 August. It will be on all wikis from 27 August (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:DMackz

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as User:DMackz, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 08:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for inserting the image in 2,1,3-Benzothiadiazole.Nihaal The Wikipedian (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nihaal The Wikipedian: You're welcome! Easy for me to draw organic structures...let me know if you need others. DMacks (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:1,2,3-Benzothiadiazole.Nihaal The Wikipedian (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nihaal The Wikipedian:-- Done. DMacks (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I am confused. Why did you revert my edit inserting my picture which looked in good size . Nihaal The Wikipedian (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It did not look in good size. There was a huge white margin, which means it takes up a lot of visual space for no reason and makes the "actual molecule" so small that its details cannot be seen easily. DMacks (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Absolute configuration

Hello. Are you sure about this[1] I always thought they called it + (at some time) and then later figured out that that was the R-isomer? (I will try to find a source to prove myself wrong) Christian75 (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It was long known and easy to measure optical rotation--a fact of nature--and I think I had learned that they took the one that had (+) rotation and called its structural nature (R). According to Optical rotation, rotation and macroscopic crystal mirror-image structures was known in 1811 (including for sugars within a short time) and that rotation was due to mirror-image molecules in 1849, whereas carbon wasn't known to be tetrahedral until 1874. I don't have a source for the exact history of "R" as a technical term. DMacks (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I have tried to find a source, but the original article by Cahn, Ingold and Prelog about the CIP rules does not say much about glyceraldehyde. But our article about glyceraldehyde says: "It was by a lucky guess that the molecular D-geometry was assigned to (+)-glyceraldehyde in the late 19th century, as confirmed by X-ray crystallography in 1951." I.e. D and not R. The same is said by Cahn (doi:10.1021/ed041p116). I will let it be - I'm not that interested in history, but fun to read about anyway (they are explaining in details stuff all chemist know today). Christian75 (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Ahah! The D/L what I was remembering, thanks for re-checking and reminding. DMacks (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-36

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

  • This is a reminder. All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on September 1. This is planned between 14:00 and 15:00 UTC. Please check on the details on the announcement message. [2][3]

Changes later this week

  • There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-37

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

  • Normally pages can be moved to a title that has no existing page yet or to a page that has only one revision, which is a redirect to the page to be moved. A new user right allows editors to move pages over one-revision pages that redirect to anywhere. [4]
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 8 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 9 September. It will be on all wikis from 10 September (calendar).
  • Advanced item All MediaWiki API modules will now use watchlist instead of watch. This was inconsistent before. [5]

Future changes

  • The Wikipedia Android app team might work on patrolling tools in the future. You can let them know what tools would be useful for you or for less experienced patrollers. See the page on mediawiki.org.
  • OTRS will be updated to a new version. This will probably take around two days. OTRS agents will not have access to the system during these days. Emails that come in during the update will be delivered when the update is done. The plan is to start around 08:00 UTC on 14 September. This could change. [6]
  • The Wikipedia Android app will send push notifications if users want them. This could help you see for example when someone wrote on your talk page or your edit was reverted. This will need Google Play Services to work. It will also be possible to get the app without Google Play Services but push notifications will not work. Google Play Services is also used to make the app work for Android 4.4 users. [7][8]
  • Advanced item Wikimedia code review could move to GitLab. It would be hosted on Wikimedia servers. You can take part in the consultation.
  • Advanced item Dropdown menus in the Vector skin use a .menu class. This will not work in the future. Scripts can use nav ul instead. .vectorTabs and .vectorMenu will also not work. Some scripts need to be updated. You can read more in Phabricator.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Why you removed details from this articles

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1,3-Diphenylisobenzofuran&diff=978042293&oldid=978032417

Why you deleted the edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulsoman (talk • contribs) 19:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

As you can see in the edit summary, "Excessive technical detail of a single experiment". Wikipedia is not a technical journal, but mainly focuses on WP:SECONDARY sources to help give readers context and unify themes. That is helped by the use of independent reliable sources to help review the original research. It seems many of the items you add are references to your own primary research. DMacks (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I could not get notified for your reply. So please remove my recent write up. Its clear for me Rahul Somantalk - contribs 23:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-38

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

  • The Wikipedia apps briefly showed pages without CSS last week. This meant they looked wrong. It was quickly fixed but cached pages without CSS were shown for a few hours. [9][10]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 15 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 16 September. It will be on all wikis from 17 September (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding edit in Article about DPBF

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/978042293

Found that you removed my edit in this page. DPBF is a chemical compound widely used in chemistry a d biology research world to determine the concentration of singlet oxygen produced. So basically its a indicator. I just mentioned the procedure there in the article. Instead the reaction and all the research fellow working with specific compound will be more beneficial with thay write up. Its my perspective. Is there any rules in wiki we should never add such writeups like that. If you felt it as unwanted discussion just leave it sir. This ia Rahul Somantalk - contribs 23:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTMANUAL. DMacks (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

SPI

I just submitted a case to SPI that might be of interest to you. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-39

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • There is a new tag for reverted edits. For example you can see it in the recent changes feed or in the article history. It is added to edits when they have been undone, rollbacked or manually reverted to an older version of the page. [11][12]

Changes later this week

  • The number of times you can do something in a period of time on wiki is limited. This could be the number of edits per minute or the number of users you email in a day. Some users are not affected by all limits because of their user rights. They could soon see the limit even if it does not affect them. [13]
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 22 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 23 September. It will be on all wikis from 24 September (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

21:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This Month in Education: September 2020

This Month in Education

Volume 9 • Issue 9 • September 2020

Contents • Headlines • Subscribe

In This Issuse

Tech News: 2020-40

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • Admins can now see links to diffs of deleted revisions on Special:AbuseLog. This uses the interface of Special:Undelete. [14]
  • Editors are automatically added to some user groups. For example editors are added to autoconfirmed users when they have edited enough times and long enough. Abuse filters can hinder users from automatically getting user rights for a period of time. They can also remove rights user have. Wikis can now ask to change how long this period of time is for their wiki in Phabricator. It is currently five days. [15]

Problems

  • Last year some abuse filters stopped working because of a new change. If they tried to use variables that were unavailable for that action they would fail. This has now been fixed. [16]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 29 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 30 September. It will be on all wikis from 1 October (calendar).

Future changes

  • You can't see the language links to other language versions from the talk page or history page. They are also not shown when you edit an article. This could change. It is not decided if for example the history page should link to another history page or to the article. You can take part in the discussion in Phabricator.
  • The link colours could change. This is to make the difference between links and other text more clear. You can read more in Phabricator.
  • In your preferences you can choose to get different notifications on the web or by email. You will see Apps as one of the alternatives later this week. This is because the Android and iOS Wikipedia apps will use push notifications for those who want them. You can see the preferences on the test wiki. The goal is to have push notifications on Android in October and on iOS in early 2021. [17]
  • You can soon put pages on your watchlist for a limited time. This could be useful if you want to watch something for a shorter time but don't want it on your watchlist forever. It now works on mediawiki.org and will come to more wikis later. You can read more and see when it will come to other wikis.
  • You can see what Wikimedians think are the best new technical tools this year. You can also nominate them.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

21:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hi DMacks! Thanks for everything you did to 1,2,3-Benzothiadiazole. Acidic Carbon (Corrode) (Organic compounds) 14:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I am NOT a Fraud

Hello, according to Wikipedia, people are allowed to put ONLY reliable information. I am not doing any disruptive editing. Please understand. The info on that site is reliable. If you don't believe, you can check some other source and let me know if I am wrong in the external link or reference I am providing or not. Hope you understand Regards Shivansh Goswami — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivansh Goswami (talk • contribs) 03:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-41

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • There is a new tool where you can see which home wiki users have in discussions on Meta. This can help show which communities are not part of the discussion on wikis where we make decisions that affect many other wikis.
  • You can now thank users for file uploads or for changing the language of a page. [18]

Problems

  • There were many errors with the new MediaWiki version last week. The new version was rolled back. Updates that should have happened last week are late. [19]
  • Everyone was logged out. This was because a user reported being logged in to someone else's account. The problem should be fixed now. [20]
  • Advanced item Many pages have JavaScript errors. You can read more and now see a list of user scripts with errors.

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 6 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 7 October. It will be on all wikis from 8 October (calendar).
  • Letters immediately after a link are shown as part of the link. For example the entire word in [[Child]]ren is linked. On Arabic wikis this works at both the start and end of a word. Previously on Arabic wikis numbers and other non-letter Unicode characters were shown as part of the link at the start of a word but not at the end. Now only Latin and Arabic letters will extend links on Arabic wikis. [21]

Future changes

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Our Indian friend

I see you are on the case - and I concur with the ridiculous diformaldehyde redirect. I took a look at his edit history today and there is another for a redirect for 123 Benzothiadiazole. I think we are going to have to do something more assertive about these disruptive and time-wasting contributions. I'm looking to you for suggestions as I'm still somewhat inexperienced in this area. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: looks like User:Cullen328 finally pulled the trigger. "Thanks Cullen328!". DMacks (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
All in a day's work, my friends. Trolls gotta be trolls, and I will block them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dodecahedrane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Torsional strain.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Tommy Wiseau's name

Hello, I can't agree to your revert and consindering my editions as vandalism. Tommy Wiseau is Tomasz Wieczorkiewicz and it is confirmed in given sources from USA and Poland. He isn't D. B. Cooper nor Jesus nor alien as many Americans think, he is from Poland. These documents can't be hidden as Tommy lost a court trial this year which justified that these documents are publicly available, so I think that his personal data should be set in Wikipedia. Regards, --Qqq1000 (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-42

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

  • Because of the problems with the MediaWiki version two weeks ago last week's updates are also late. [23][24][25]

Changes later this week

  • Live previews didn't show the templates used in the preview if you just edited a section. This has now been fixed. You can also test CSS and JavaScript pages even if you have the live preview enabled. Previously this didn't work well. [26][27]
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 13 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 14 October. It will be on all wikis from 15 October (calendar).

Future changes

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice

Hi DMacks,

Thanks for the recent advice on adding a citation, will make sure to do that in the future for sure!

All the best, GA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenadvice (talk • contribs) 20:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xylylene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Triplet.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Please get rid of the redirect for 123 Benzothiadiazole

Hi DMacks Thanks for putting me on the right track for the correct way to delete Lasri condensation. I decided to take the nuclear option as I'm too new to these things to be sure how to do otherwise. Please could you now do the honours for 123 Benzothiadiazole, which is the redirect [29]? This is, I hope, the last of the mess made by Nihaal and we certainly don't want to be setting a precedent for redirecting chemical names that otherwise would use commas between the multiple numbers. Particularly here as Benzthiadiazole is already a disambiguation term. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome, happy to help with chemistry articles! That particular one has a somewhat ugly history from the surely-WP:COI editors so I thought it was extra important to follow the policy to the letter. Nihaal seems to have had a bunch of similar "let's make up typos" redirects, so Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 14#Cleanup from User:Acid Of Carbon. DMacks (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Abishekjerold

This user has been warned several times, but keeps changing the cast order in films such as [30]. Can you block this user please? --TamilMirchi (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Help from friendly admin, please

Yuendumu Gold 01

Hi DMacks. We more often talk on chemistry pages but today I'd like to seek your help on a minor but important issue. I have been assisting Ed Gold, who created a user account now called User:EddieLeVisco. After a faltering start, he worked out how to ask for changes to be made to the WP article about him and is now contributing elsewhere, especially by getting me to upload files to Commons on his behalf, having gone through the OTRS process. The first of these is copied here.

NOW, in attempting to avoid the hassles which we (I mean WP editors as a whole) put EddieLeVisco through, I have proposed an experiment that I hope will catch on. With his permission, I made his user page into a redirect to Ed Gold so that now he has been through an OTRS-like process he can once-and-for-all be seen to have that association. What I would like now is for you, as an admin, to red-lock the redirect so he won't "lose" the connection by accident. In the long term, we might redirect his (Eddie) Talk Page to the article's Talk Page but for now I don't think that's needed. Ed has submitted an piece for Signpost about his experiences and I'm pretty sure that Smallbones will accept it: possibly even as an article + a Gallery article.

On that topic, is it possible to gently ask the Commons ORTS folk (we had initially a great response from Alfred Neumann) to expedite the OTRS process so that Ed's files can actually be used. I had a terrible fight today at WT:WikiProject_Military_history#Please_free_free_to_use_excellent_new_photographs_by_Ed_Gold because I hadn't realised that each uploaded file has to be approved by the OTRS staff before it can be legitimately used anywhere. The picture copied here is virtually the only one that has such work done. That's not a grumble and as I stated in a recent e-mail to permissions-etc I said "We apologise for bombarding you with these uploads to process. If you can propose an alternative protocol that would give you less effort (and me more) then please do so." Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

That's an interesting experiment! I know of a few WP editors who have articles about themselves but they more often have a separate (real) userpage rather than a redirect to the article. Redirecting the user-talk to the article-talk would not be appropriate, since one is "discuss article" and other is "discuss with editor". It's easy enough to put a header in each talkpage linking to the other with mention of those separate scopes. I'm not sure how confusing it is to readers to have separate talks for single (via redirect) pages.
Agreed. Having thought about it, while redirecting the User page should be fine, there always needs to be the Talk Page for the article and the one for the User. We've already shown by experiment that it is technically possible to red-lock the User page as a redirect. There's no reason to actually do so in EddieLeVisco's case as he will just be leaving that page empty, with his COI obvious at "the article's talk page".. On a related matter, @DMacks: someone on Commons called Calistemon had a brilliant idea which they implemented (see "my Common's Talk page".). I'm now going to add the correct category to all of Mr Gold's photos. This is one reason why the "solution" to get him to upload his own photos doesn't work: that would put the onus on him, who is busy IRL while I have loads of time, and am willing, to help. I have been careful, for example, to tag all the photos as far as I can and getting everything correct (it has to be done one-at-a-time to be certain) takes a long time. Mr Gold and I have worked out an excellent protocol for his transferring the images to me for upload and I see no reason to mend what is not broken.
I had an e-mail today from Alfred Neumann, one of the Commons volunteers on the permissions desk. I'll quote it in full here to illustrate the only remaining problem:
"It is indeed difficult to follow the correspondence. We are processing worldwide request for several Wikipedia projects and have an average processing time of less than a minute for each e-mail in order to keep up with the backlog. To now speed this issue up and find the best fitting procedure, please advise: Approximately how many images of the same kind, i.e. "photographs by Ed Gold", are you intending to upload in the foreseeable future?"
While I don't know the answer (that's up to Mr Gold as copyright holder) I certainly hope, on behalf of the Wikipedia community that it might be "1000+ over the next year". So my proposal, to reduce the workload on everyone but me would be to give me the right to create OTRS permissions for these uploads and bollocks me later if I get them wrong. Technically, I assume this just means my being able to edit the Commons =={{int:filedesc}}== part: I tried to do so for one and got a big red message warning me I wasn't allowed to do so. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
You are asking for admin privileges to grant yourself (in effect) copyright?Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Hell, no, on the contrary I'm trying to give it away! The copyright is clearly Mr Gold's and will remain that way. The problem is, as I understand it (and I may not do so, hence my asking for advice) is that at present, any image I upload has to individually be approved by a person with the correct privileges to apply the OTRS tag. One image where this has been done is the very first one I uploaded "Yuendumu Gold 01.jpg". and which Mr Gold (and I) used the ORTS process to inform permissions-commons@wikimedia.org about, following the correct procedure. Permissions-commons have now been informed about all the uploads so far but as you can see from Alfred's reply (above) it will take some time for things to sort themsselves out. Meanwhile this single image now has "Wikimedia Foundation has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2020101210010454." attached to it.
As things stand, because I upload the pictures from my account, not Mr Gold from his EddieLeVisco one, it appears that I am the copyright holder. Until OTRS volunteers get round to applying the OTRS message to each individual image, describing the copyright situation accurately, casual readers of the page might think it was me who owned the files, while in fact my only role has been to save Mr Gold's effort: at the cost of effort to other volunteers. As the files are to become {{CC BY-SA 4.0}}, once they are safely stored and tagged anyone (even me!) can copy them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Then slow down, we do not need 160 images, and even if we did it can wait. We cannot start giving you special privileges to circumvent our rules and legal protections. Not when there is an even simpler solution, slow down.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Who is this royal "we" you are speaking on behalf of? I have in any case slowed down — to a halt. There won't be any more for the present until I see some WP:AGF regarding my actions. The issue is that, judging from his rant below, the supply will in any case dry up, through no fault of mine. Incidentally, contrary to the scurrilous suggestion by @David notMD: below, I have not, and will not, add a single one of these images to WP articles, except that for Ed Gold, which seemed to me like a reasonable quid pro quo: even that was reverted (albeit for doubts about the license, not because the reverter thought the photos were inappropriate). Social documentary is way beyond my expertise, which is in organic chemistry, where my contributions have never troubled anyone, including David notMD, as the record shows. The suggestion (also below) that Wikimedia won't benefit from Mr Gold's photos is, frankly, preposterous. Have you looked at them or is Wikimedia suddenly running out of storage space? They will be about 0.00001%[citation needed] of the total, with many of the remaining ones (including a few of my own) being very inferior by comparison. Why are editors putting so many barriers in the way when one of the world's best living portrait photographers is willing to donate so much of his work to WIkimedia? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
No one has issues with some photos, its the idea that 160 (let alone 100's) are going to be useful. No one is trying to keep all of his photos of Wikipedia, we just do not see a need for all of them to be here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Regarding image licensing, the easiest solution is to have Ed upload his own images instead of you on his behalf. That way he can file a single OTRS ticket verifying that he (account) is the one who owns license to his (person) works. Then commons would automatically accept that he (uploader) has permission to upload and make whatever license declaration for any of his (person) works. I've seen that done for several other artists on commons. DMacks (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I've undone the user talk page redirection here. Wikipedia user pages and articles are distinct, and the redirection could give the impression that the article is somehow an 'official' page for Mr Gold. More broadly, given that you have a relationship with Mr Gold[citation needed], you need to take care with editing articles linked to him (please see WP:COI) and on his behalf. Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull: :@Mike Turnbull: :@Nick-D: :@DMacks: :@Slatersteven: :@Smallbones: :@David notMD:

I have been watching developments over the time Mike Turnbull has been kindly helping to edit the Wikipedia article about me. I am not impressed by how Mike Turnbull has been treated, given that he stood up to the plate to help me and no other editor did. All the other editors are up in the peanut gallery criticizing whilst Mike Turnbull has worked extremely hard. It took over 50 emails with :@Cordless Larry: to establish how I could simply contact an editor (to create a new user name and get unblocked) and now this is the result, a large counter-productive and time-wasting activity with people who have far too much free time on their hands and whose toilet training at infancy was brutal, no doubt.

@Smallbones: has asked me to write an article for The Signpost about my experiences as a newbie (newby). On one hand I am being asked to submit my photographs for a gallery for The Signpost article and on the other it has been suggested on this Talk page (I notice now that comment has been deleted, from yesterday, 17 Oct) "that having my own photographs on my own article page isself-promotional". If that is the case then having my own photographs in The Signpost article too is self-promotional and makes the entire Signpost article hypercritical. Therefore, following the natural direction of this thread, not only will I not be showing any of my photographs in The Signpost article but given Smallbone's pompous and arrogant attitude, I won't be giving my permission to use my written article either. Rather than just send me a pasted copy of my edited article Smallbones instead broke my article up into parts and sent me different links for each. I don't have time for this holier-than-thou behaviour. I have never had such a bad experience online, in 24 years, as dealing with any of you editors, apart from Mike Turnbull, whose knowledge and integrity is being wasted here. I have never come across such pedantic, petty, mean spirited, pernickety and boring people online as you Wikipedia editors. When I consider how much effort I have put into my work over 3 decades it is obviously apparent that my work is too good to be featured on The Signpost and I withdraw any permission to use my work and words. All I wanted, since I am not allowed to edit my Wikipedia page myself, was to find an editor with maturity, (which I did, thanks Mike) to bring the article up to date, because whoever Wikipedia editor before had created it, made an absolute mess. (A mess I had no way of clearing up). And now I find that I am spending 12 hours a day at this and getting stressed, which is something I do not need.

Smallbones asks me to "provide some brief interleaved text to go with photos - more than just a caption, but maybe a paragraph or 2 of text between groups of photos" for The Signpost and when I did provide captions he says that Wikipedia editors might make a problem about the copyright of the text, even though it is MY text and I own the copyright for it. This sort of contradictory behaviour is ridiculous and annoying and sums all of you up. At the beginning, Smallbones also suggested I was a liar because I claimed to have been using Wikipedia since its creation in 2001. Do you think that I am in the habit of mincing my words when supplying my work to media companies around the world? It was also suggested that I might have been involved with 'paid-editing' and another reason to block me. Where was your clipboard toting, hyper checking, triple questioning, repetitive reasoning then to back up that false claim? Do you think I need to be treated like I have done something wrong? I don't need to face this very irrational, narcissistic behaviour of yours.

All I would like is a Wikipedia article that truthfully and correctly displays my work and not a half baked shambles. I don't need to be involved in an infinite game of ping-pong that goes back and forwards with people bent on finding, and creating, problems for the sake of it. And I don't need to spend days on an article for The Signpost when it is only for a 1000 people or so and I am not getting paid. (And when I am not being paid, my work is being devalued!) This is a toxic place to be and editors here need to be more broad-minded in their overall understanding of life. Yes, Wikipedia is a highly trusted resource because facts are well checked before publication, but get a grip people! When it gets to this point you all need to climb down off your high horses and go out for a walk and do something less boring instead. When I read your toings and froings I always think of of the guard in the Monthy Python film 'The Holy Grail' discussing the airspeed velocity of a swallow when questioning the presence of a coconut in Mercia during the time of King Arthur. All you editors are that guard. You can consider the above 'my article' about being a newbie, which has become old, very quickly.EddieLeVisco (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

We have policies that are designed to protect us from litigation and living people from lies and exploitation. Copyvio is one of those. Anyone can claim copy right, anyone can claim to be a given person, we need proof of both if you are claiming legal authority over someones work. Sometimes that means that there are problems, that is a shame. But no one has a right to have their work displayed here, nor are we a gallery to display your images. Certain attitudes (such as "I wont do it" or "My WORK!!") will only antagonise other editors (who also also not paid). Not helped when a person who claims to be the actually copyright holder can edit here and upload the images themselves, so it has created a conflict that need never have happened for no perceivable purpose. Accompanied by behaviour that is seen by some as "odd" after all if you have the right you right to use these images you would be willing to provide proof, not ask others to do it. This just made users suspicious as to what was going on. Ir rang alarms bells which subsequent actions did nothing to quieten.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I find extremely troubling the idea that Turnbull, acting on behalf of Gold, believes that Commons and Wikipedia will benefit from 100+ images, and now this estimate that it could become 1000+ images. Once uploaded, will Turnbull be spackleing scores of articles with Gold's images? That feels promotional of Gold's reputation as a photographer. Or does Turnbull hope that this reservoir of photos will be found by other editors as they improve existing articles and create new articles? And a P.S. to Gold: none of us are being paid, either. David notMD (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
It does read like a violation of wp:not, a few images, maybe a dozen. But 100's, why do we need this many? It really does read like they are trying to use Wikipedia as a free photo hosting service. There is even a copy right disclaimer about commercial use.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I have a great deal of sympathy with Ed Gold's point of view here. A newby coming to edit Wikipedia for the first time faces many challenges that are not easily overcome. Things that most people might expect are simply not true on Wikipedia. We can be incredibly picky about our very confusing policies and different editors have different interpretations of these policies. That said I'm doubting that Ed has the ability to overcome these obstacles. As the editor-in-chief of The Signpost, I'm used to actually editing articles that have been submitted. Let me give you just one example of something I want to change in Ed's submission - the first line. "Since January 2001, when Wikipedia was founded, I, along with many millions of others, have been regularly using this online encyclopedia as a brilliant reference tool." In my judgement, many Wikipedians reading that line will perhaps misread that line and think that Ed is saying that he and millions of other people read Wikipedia during the two weeks Wikipedia was open in January 2001. That interpretation is unlikely to be true. I don't think Ed meant to say that, but many Wikipedians will stop and say to themselves "this guy just doesn't know what he is talking about." That's a horrible way to start an article. There are at least 3 other places in the submission that have similar problems that I would ordinarily just edit out and let the author approve at the end (or not publish it if they don't). Ed just doesn't like my editing. I'm sorry but if that is the case, and the photos aren't properly sorted out with OTRS, The Signpost can't publish the submission.

I can send Ed the proper OTRS form and fill it out for him and all he has to do is sign it and send it in. That and saying something like "please edit this submission to the best of your ability." and I'd be ready to publish.

It's a shame the Ed and other Wikipedians can't get together and accomplish what many of us want to do, but at some point we all have time constraints. Ed, send me an email and fill out the form. Otherwise we can't do it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hear, hear but there is no need for Mr Gold to fill in any forms (unless you are referring to something to do with Signpost). I have used the OTRS process a couple of times over the years I have been editing here and so I advised him, correctly I believe, on how to proceed via e-mail to the permissions folk. Indeed, Mr Gold subsequently informed me he was very impressed with Alfred Neumann's speed of response. As far as I know, the current issue is merely the bottleneck that volunteers at permissions have not yet reviewed all the uploads which I made on Mr Gold's behalf (see upper part of this thread).
As to what I (tongue in cheek) call your edit war with Mr Gold about his article then surely both of you are just doing what I would expect and will resolve when you both WP:AGF. Mr Gold might not have liked your assertion that he hadn't used WP from its inception but will surely relent when it comes to the wording of the first sentence, for the reasons you have just explained. If the two of you can't reach a compromise, then Signpost, and the rest of us will arguably be worse off as a result. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead sections

Are you familiar with their purpose? 46.208.152.102 (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you choosing to edit war because you don't like where in an article a certain chunk of cited on-topic content is? You'll just lose on behavioral grounds and nobody will even look at the possible value of your content ideas. I moved the content down into a more-relevant section. DMacks (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I am editing the article to improve the article. Why you are editing it, I can't imagine, because you are not following very basic guidelines. 46.208.152.102 (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:BRD is the prescribed editorial process. WP:RS is the standard for content to be includable. DMacks (talk) 09:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
It isn't prescribed. It describes itself as optional. It does not entitle you to revert whenever you like. And reliable sources are a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion in articles. 46.208.152.102 (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
It merely restates processes for the WP:Consensus policy (from which it is linked), and also in keeping with the WP:BOLD guideline. Your original rejections seemed based on the lack of relevance or validity of the claim at all, but the ref itself clearly states the relevance. So the problem was the way it was described in the article. Then you semed to repeatedly reject the content out-of-hand (even knowing that WP:EW doesn't work), it felt like moving goalposts. That's all why WP:BRD exists...to defuse the edit-stream and instead have a place to lay out the issues in more detail than an edit-summary (or to help figure out what a ref is really saying). DMacks (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-43

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 20 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 21 October. It will be on all wikis from 22 October (calendar).

Future changes

  • You will be able to read but not to edit the wikis for up to an hour on 27 October around 14:00 (UTC). It will probably be shorter than an hour. [31]
  • Advanced item In the AbuseFilter extension, the rmspecials() function will be updated soon so that it does not remove the "space" character. Wikis are advised to wrap all the uses of rmspecials() with rmwhitespace() wherever necessary to keep filters' behavior unchanged. You can use the search function on Special:AbuseFilter to locate its usage. [32]
  • Some gadgets and user-scripts use the HTML div with the ID #jump-to-nav. This div will be removed soon. Maintainers should replace these uses with either #siteSub or #mw-content-text. A list of affected scripts is at the top of phab:T265373.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Kelvin

Facepalm Facepalm Hey—thanks for pointing that out! I thought I had read/learned the MOSNUM sections pretty well, but I missed that one (degrees with F & C, but not with Kelvin). And it looks like there was a *ton* of discussion about it, too. I ain't gonna poke that hornet's nest... Cheers! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 14:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

No worries:) DMacks (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Grnwng continues to edit-war

The three-day block you placed for continuing to edit war has expired, and Grnwng (talk · contribs)'s first edit is to revert[33]. I'll write it up at ANEW, but thought you would want to know. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to let someone else answer first at ANEW, so we have diversity of voices. DMacks (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
How about you both stop conspiring to force a blatant policy violation into the first sentence of an article? It is a pathetic way to behave. Grnwng (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
You're essentially giving even outsiders seeing this discussion as many reasons as possible to block you without even looking at your ideas, by repeatedly violating WP:EW and WP:NPA. Is that likely to accomplish your goals? DMacks (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for messing up your Talk page!

Hi again DMacks. It was not my intention to mess up your talk page when I posted here on Saturday. Thank you for doing just what I asked you to do and subsequently staying out of the pile-on. Any issue with Mr Gold's photographs has now been resolved: they all now have the corrects OTRS tags. As always with Talk Pages, it's now up to you how you deal with the pile of ordure that followed our initial exchange. I no longer care.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for working on it. I never mind if my page hosts others' continued discussions. Figured once it became a mess that didn't involve exactly what part I was working on, I would take a step back. Sorry it was a headache for those actually working on it. My talkpage autoarchives every few days once a discussion goes dormant, so if nobody has anything further to add it will simply fade out of view. DMacks (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DMacks/Archive_46&oldid=1145964734"