User talk:DMacks

Hi, we are staff from SCGS and we would like to help to keep the info up to date. Please advise how we can assist to keep the information updated. Thanks. email: scgss_ict@moe.edu.sg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.189.35.234 (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Amino Acids, Response 13DEC2015

Hello DMacks! Thanks for catching my mistakes regarding the amino acid pages Histidine and Pyrrolysine. I added the links and fixed the sub-scripting as you suggested. When I get the chance to get to a PC with ChemDraw, I'll fix the images as well. Anything else you might suggest? Abuzzanco (talk)

Scoobalawyer==26 July 2015

Hello DMacks, I Kindly Request You To Protect This Wikipedia Page of Kick (2014 film) because of High Vandalism by unknown users link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kick_(2014_film). Thanks!

Re: OxNotes.com on Wallington Grammar page

Hello DMacks,

I am a representative of OxNotes (a student run website and soon to be textbook) , I apologise for method in which it was recently added to the Wikipedia page, I have ensured all 'marketing speak' has been removed and what is left is only factual information. Please feel free to contact me via LinkedIn, Twitter or email k@oxnotes.com if you require any further information. Thank you.

Kind Regards

Kazim

Kazim Chaudri Editor: OxNotes by Fluxty (Non-Profit) www.linkedin.com/in/kazimchaudri

==

Hello, DMacks. You have new messages at NicholasCarlough's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

==

Sorry not sure how els to contact you to discuss the farm page.

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

added external links

I had added one reference link to page Бесхвостые , tutorvista had added its 4 links, then why not i can add one more reference link from other website. Its not promotion, but the page which i have, also tells about fron digestive system. So is that bad to put a reference link on that page. Please guide me.

Support request with team editing experiment project

Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_team_editing), I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Wikipedia community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my project noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Wikipedia everywhere) Regards from User:Micru on meta.

Maybe you should not rollback my code in the word "leapyear"

Hi, DMacks:

    When I fixed the some mistake of python code in "leap year", my code is rollback by you for the reason "Too much detail/WP is not a how-to manual". I'm software engineer, and I found many people don't known the history of "leap year", include the textbooks about programming in china. the wrong code is used for getting "leap year"(before 1582). So, I spend some time to study this question, and wrote the code which let more people know "leap year". can you allow the code is added to the context of "leap year".

   It's my first commit in Wiki. :)

   Best Regards

   Jerry.Liu, Beijing, China

   PS:
   I have add python code to bake of baidu. let more people knows the history of "leap year".  My English is poor, maybe you can know what I said.  hah.

Cynthia Larive's AFD

I've closed the AFD as a keep. I did read the article and don't think it shouldv'e been kept, but consensus is consensus and that's what counts in the end. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the followup. DMacks (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-13

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

• MediaWiki now supports the semantic web standards of Microdata and RDFa 1.0. On Wikimedia projects, a configuration change must be requested in order to enable RDFa 1.0. [1] [2]

Problems

• Adding references with Citoid was broken for approximately 6 hours on 24 March. This was fixed. [3]

Changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 29 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 30 March. It will be on all wikis from 31 March (calendar).
• You will be able to remove the header and footer style from User language (babel) boxes. This will make it easier to use them with other userboxes. [4]

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with part of the Architecture committee, which will discuss a few topics. The meeting will be on 30 March at 21:00 (UTC). See how to join.
• The Architecture committee has sent a summary of new and ongoing RFC discussions.

Future changes

• Commons will soon have improved access to Wikidata's data. It will then be possible to access data about any concept on any page on Commons. Assistance with testing this on the beta cluster is appreciated. [5]
• Wikibits.js will not be loaded by default anymore starting April 2016. Gadget and script authors should have already updated their code since the previous announcements, but there is another migration path available if needed. See wikitech-l for details.

Corrections

• Last week Tech News said the new MediaWiki version would come to wikis from 21 March to 23 March. The right dates were 22 March to 24 March.

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

19:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That was quick

Fair enough. [6]. Perhaps the word will become common use after his Tarzan-movie, then I´ll be able to source it to CNN, BBC, WaPo and the like. Sorry for the bother! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No bother at all. UrbanDictionary and similar sites are pretty notable as a nonreliable source, and things related to living persons need really good sources (WP:BLP policy). But sure, if some day this gets picked up in mainstream media or something like that, it's reasonable to include it (as actual prose with cite). DMacks (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-14

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

• You can filter Special:Log in more detail. [7]
• Wikimedia wikis have a new way of counting visitors. [8]

Changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from April 5. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from April 6. It will be on all wikis from April 7 (calendar).

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

22:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Citations

Is this where I can contact Dmacks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti.greenwash (talk • contribs) 04:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC) He/she accused me of disruptive editing and I would like to cite the reliable sources for my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti.greenwash (talk • contribs) 05:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am here. Cites are needed for any claimed fact, such as MPGe values or conversions specific to any particular product and every opinion of something being misleading. verifiability of facts and opinions and novel analysis of facts themselves is a serious problem otherwise. DMacks (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to apply an equation specified in a source to a specific example in a wikipedia article? For example, State of CHARGE June 2012 paper from The Union of Concerned Scientists points out that MPGe is different from MPGghg (greenhouse gases) as follows:

"Most drivers are familiar with the concept of miles per gal- lon (mpg), the number of miles a car can travel on a gallon of gasoline. The greater the mpg, the less fuel burned and the lower your global warming emissions. But how can such consumption be figured for electric vehicles, which don’t use gasoline? One way is by determining how many miles per gallon a gasoline- powered vehicle would need to achieve in order to match the global warming emissions of an EV. The first step in this process is to evaluate the global warming emissions that would result at the power plant from charging a vehicle with a specific amount of electricity. Then we convert this estimate into a gasoline mile-per-gallon equiva- lent—designated mpgghg, where ghg stands for greenhouse gases. If an electric vehicle has an mpgghg value equal to the mpg of a gasoline-powered vehicle, both vehicles will emit the same amounts of global warming pollutants for every mile they travel. For example, if you were to charge a typical midsize electric vehicle using electricity generated by coal-fired power plants, that vehicle would have an mpgghg of 30. In other words, the global warming emissions from driving that electric vehicle would be equivalent to the emissions from operating a gasoline vehicle with 30 mpg fuel economy over the same distance"

Is it acceptible to use the average ghg emissions per kWh for the United States as indicated in the paper, apply that to the EPA-specified electricity use of the Tesla Model S, and point out that the MPGghg thus obtained is 45, rather that the 89 MPGe specified by the EPA? This does not strike me as independent research, simply using the specific formula from the research paper to determine the MPGghg for the Model S.

Anti.greenwash 09:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti.greenwash (talk • contribs) Also, I should point out that the MPGe number on the EPA website https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/35980.shtml is under the heading "Fuel Economy" and by definition, fuel is something that chemically or nuclearly reacts to produce heat. As such, any rating under that category must relate to the economy of the fuel used to produce the electricity, rather than the quantity of the electricity itself. And as Carnot pointed out, the conversion from heat to mechanical and therefore electrical power is never 100 percent efficient. In fact, the thermodynamic inefficiency in generating electical power from fuel is about the ratio between MPGghg and MPGe. So it appears that the EPA is using the wrong MPG equivalent.

Is it acceptable to point this out? Or should the wikipedia page on fuel be changed to include elecricity as a type of fuel? Anti.greenwash 11:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti.greenwash (talk • contribs) Thinking about this more, the confusion may stem from the fact that there are multiple miles per gallong gasoline equivalents: the 2 we are discussing are MPG gasoline equivalent (combustion energy) which is used by the EPA, and MPG gasoline equivalent (greenhouse gas production) as defined in the paper I cited above.

Maybe the solution is to create separate wikipedia pages for these 2 MPGes and clarify the difference between them. Then the page for the Tesla Model S might read "EPA rates its energy consumption at 237.5 watt·hour per kilometer (38 kWh/100 mi or 24 kWh/100 km) for a combined fuel economy of 89 miles per gallon gasoline equivalent (combustion energy). Based on EPA energy use, average United States miles per gallon equivalent gasoline (greenhouse gas production) is 45."

I think it is vitally important to distinguish between these 2 MPG gasoline equivalents, because global warming is a major threat to the survival of humanity. Since the Environmental Protection Agency is presumably focused on protecting the environment from global warming, it is natural for people to assume that the MPG equivalent the EPA is using is the one relating to greenhouse gas production.

I don't know if this was an oversight by EPA or an intentional attempt to mislead the American People, but as the wikipedia pages currently exist, they give the impression that the Model S produces as much greenhouse gas per mile as a gasoline-powered car getting 89 MPG, which is completely false. No reputable scientist would claim the model S produces that much greenhouse gas per mile, instead they would use MPGe(ghg). Unless the wikipedia pages are updated to clarify this issue, I think wikipedia is further confusing the issue and encouraging behavior that worsens global warming.

Can I separate the MPGe pages, or can someone at wikipedia separate them?

Anti.greenwash 18:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti.greenwash (talk • contribs)

If there are really two definitions of MPGe that have reliable sources defining them, then I agree they should both be mentioned. I'm not sure they are different concepts enough to merit separate pages. Doing so also risks readers only finding one of them and not realizing they might be looking at the wrong meaning in a certain context, or be misled by the actual meaning of a manufacturer's or EPA's claim. But you have to be very careful not to apply your own thoughts and logic to try to interpret or refute/dispute an actual cited claim. No cite needed to apply a formula to convert something (except citing the formula or linking the basis of it), but if the result casts doubt or makes implications (that a manufacturer is lying, or that something isn't as good as other sources say), you can't do that (WP:SYNTH creating WP:NPOV problem)--you'd need a cite actually asserting that the result is valid. And you definitely can't make any direct or implied statement about anyone's motivation for action (or lack of action) without a very good cite, even if you think it's "obvious" what they're doing. DMacks (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, good. There is definitely the greenhouse gas production MPG equivalent defined in The Union of Concerned Scientists' June 2012 paper "State of CHARGE Electric Vehicles’ Global Warming Emissions and Fuel-Cost Savings across the United States". That paper is available online at the Union of Concerned Scientists' website.

The combustion energy MPG equivalent is defined by the EPA. I guess I will consider the EPA a reliable source for the purposes of this discussion.

These different MPG equivalents give numbers that are about 2x apart, so it makes a big difference which one people use. One of my concerns is that if only the EPA version is quoted in the pages for electric cars, because that version does not accurately reflect the global warming effects of the vehicle, people might not click beyond there and they won't even know that there is a very different version which is accurate regarding the global warming effects. To use the Tesla Model S example, people would read 89 MPGe and assume that it is better for the environment than a 56 MPG Toyota Prius, when the Tesla's 45 MPGghg correctly shows that it is worse for the environment than the Prius.

I am open to suggestions about how to present this to people without violating the Wikipedia rules. Also, should I just edit the pages the best I can or should I work with you or someone else to revise them?

Anti.greenwash 04:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti.greenwash (talk • contribs)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Noble gas compound, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neil Bartlett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, I should point out that we don't really need to accuse the EPA of lying. Because I don't think they ever claimed their combustion energy MPGe reflects environmental effects. They might hope consumers will misunderstand their MPGe as reflecting greenhouse gas emissions.

So I think all we have to do is clearly explain that the MPGghg equivalent from the Union of Concerned Scientists is the one reflecting environmental effects. All I want is for consumers to be properly informed so they can make decisions.

Anti.greenwash 19:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti.greenwash (talk • contribs)

Uup-115(299)

Hi DMacks, About 3/4 of my Uup paragraph is mathematics. It is not speculative; it is not mere inference nor speculation. Presented by me are observable and accurate mathematics calculations. Further, Uup is at the most dense part of the Periodic Table. Do you not understand what residing at the dense end of the Periodic Table means, particularly when an unusually large number of Neutrons are part of the atomic structure?

If you disagree with the Mathematics, please present your argument or arguments.

In terms of the ultra high Neutron content of Uup-299, it would be likely found re the circumstances linked to in my Uup content, if you even vaguely bothered to read those linked Wikipedia pages. There is no evidence at all you read my linked pages, i.e. citations, particularly considering how so always quickly you delete my data and my INFORMATION-FILLED paragraph - with my cross-references(sources) to other existing Wikipedia pages.

A Roche lobe with spun-off highly-neutron intense masses would be formed off a highly rotating Neutron star, in any of the scenarios listed. You seem to want to deny the high Neutron content of Uup-299 generally, as well.

If you even bothered to look at the Golden Ratio - it is wholly "non-coincidental" - although you seemed to object to that phrase. 1.6 is a Golden Ratio. Deny it all you want, delete the paragraph I inserted all you want, but the 1.6 ratio does not go away.

Please: If 8 divided by 5 does not equal 1.6, cite your source.

Further, my additional Uup-299 text helps put the heavy end of the Periodic Table into better perspective for all people, including those who may not possess a Ph.D. in Uup.

Your deletion of the paragraph, please forgive me, is highly reminiscent of book burning or even text book chapter-tear-outs - which also occurred, most frequently in a public forum or public venue.

You can attempt to squelch and censor math and science all you want, but the facts speak for themselves. The facts should be presented and allowed to be read, not burned away. The science and math are not going away.

Uup's heaviest known isotope ²⁹⁹Uup has 115 protons plus 184 neutrons in its nucleus. It would be the most dense of all its stable isotopes. Its N:Z ratio or # neutrons(184) divided by # protons(115) = 1.6 - closely approximates mathematics and architecture's Golden Ratio. Note that 115P+184N=299. Furthermore, 299 divided by 184 = 1.625 ~ 1.6 ditto N:Z ratio. Again, 1.6 very closely approaches mathematic's golden ratio and reduces to 8 neutrons for every 5 protons in a highly symmetric, stable, 3-D proton-pentagon-based lattice-work nucleic pattern. As mathematical proof of the 8N:5P golden ratio 3-D lattice symmetry in ²⁹⁹Uup and a theoretically stable isotope: 184÷8 and 115÷5 both equate to 23 lattice sets / nuclear crystal groups. The highly dense matter and symmetrical nuclear arrangement likely generates extenuated magnetic and electrical properties within and surrounding multiple ²⁹⁹Uup atoms collectively also due to the high electron cloud density. The isotope could well be a product of a binary - pulsar, supernova or binary spinning neutron star with a Roche lobe where ²⁹⁹Uup could easily be a spin-off byproduct of ultra dense, high velocity neutron star derived matter. Using Einstein's equation: Energy = Mass times Speed of light squared ²⁹⁹Uup has huge quantities of energy stored within its mass.

Best regards. LongTermWikiUser (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)