Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:57, 24 August 2010

This is DMacks's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader)

Hi. Could you consider move protecting the page? There is a move war of sorts going on. Thanks. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone else beat me to it. DMacks (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Thanks anyway. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just saw now, that you are the compiler of the "requested move". There has been many more discussions afterwards, could you have a look into it again? In my point of view it would make sense to name it "Sri Sri Ravi Shankar". Also I was wondering about "Mahatma Gandhi"...Everybody knows him under that name and not under his real name. Same like "Mother Theresa". Would lov to hear some feedback. Thanks a lot. cheers. (Krishi108 (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC))

Request for deleted article

Hi i need my article which you deleted "Yemek Yiyen Filozoflar Problemi". I dindt know i have to write the article in Turkish Wiki. So please help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olcayertas (talk • contribs) 11:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Image Problem

Hi DMacks, I've made the changes you requested. Sorry I missed the temperature symbol from File:De-epoxidation.png. Most of the other stuff was because I was trying to be faithful to the original. I might have a look at the BKchem code to see if I can get subscripts working better in wikipedia. gringer (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Does this script help? --Leyo 14:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does, thanks. I'll send that in a bug report to the BKchem developers to see if there's some way to implement some of those changes in the program. gringer (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

feature request, just in case people are interested. gringer (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Orbital hybridisation

Thanks for correcting it, about the topic hybridization, which some editing i have made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismathsadhir (talk • contribs) 03:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Brown

Message left at my talk page Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

2nd Message left at my talk page Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Talkback Alanscottwalker Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflicts happen

Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ayan Grossing

Hey Ayan didnt gross 80 crores. It grossed just 35 crores . The 80 crores gross is a wild rumour. Surya does not enjoy the opening power of Rajini, Kamal, Ajith and Vijay. Ayan grossed 35 crores at the box office worldwide. It is the biggest grosser for Surya but not for the industry. Check the link which i have added in this talk. Just make the changes so that the data will be original. Dont prevent corrections by Locking the page. Provide editing privilage{{editprotected}} User:Geocraze (talk) 03:35, 14 august 2010 (UTC)

• Ayan (film) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I prevent edit wars by locking the page (WP:PROT). As in any edit war, one side won't be happy with how it happens to get locked (WP:WRONGVERSION)--I don't know anything about the topic or sources, so I couldn't be sure if there really was a verifiably correct vs vandalized way. I stilll don't know, and I'm definitely not willing to be your private agent in this...please place "editprotected" request on the talkpage so someone who understands this topic can help you. DMacks (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy DMacks's Day!

User:DMacks has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as DMacks's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear DMacks! Peace, Rlevse 00:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wallstowalls90

This user continues to edit against consensus at Lady Gaga discography. Invitations to discuss at the article talk page went ignored, as you may have noticed. I don't think 3RR has been violated, but this editor has made it very clear that he will continue to edit war to get his way and is refusing to discuss the matter. I'm not sure what should be done at this point, what do you say? –Chase (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done 24-hour block. DMacks (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are online, the user is back again. — Legolas 04:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Indef'ed. DMacks (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Resubmission of Lighthouse Trails

Hello DMacks, I seem to have gotten a bit lost since we last spoke. Would you mind taking a look over the article again and see if it's worthy of inclusion? It's a lot better than it was, and it's loads better than most other publishing company stubs I've been seeing. Take Banner of Truth Trust for example. Thanks again. Gaming4JC (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Conformational isomerism

Dear DMacks, thanks for taking time to check out my edits.
Your corrections were all ok and some of them I would probably have done myself,eventually.
Your comments also made me think harder and will keep in mind for my future contributions.
My picking this particular article to begin contributing to WP was provoked by the box stating that butane has three conformers:one eclipsed one gauche and one anti... More to the point now:
The problem I have is that I have tried to fit into the existing structure mostly by adding stuff both to expand and to pull things in the direction I consider appropriate.For instance I edited in it but I would never have a section titled "conformer dependent reactions" for it conveys the message that different conformers can give different products (I mean ordinary equilibrating conformers,not atropisomers and the like).Such a notion is clearly wrong.My question would be:Is it acceptable to completely remake an article keeping bits and pieces as seen fit? One more thing:What exactly do you mean with the butynol example?Would you care to explain a bit more? Cleanthis (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You could do large-scale rewriting in a subpage of your userspace and then ask for others' thoughts about it. WP:CHEMISTRY is a good venue to attract attention of lots of interested and knowledgeable WP editors--might have some suggestions about how to integrate or reorganize the article. Here are my quick thoughts: Would "Effects on reactions" be a section-header for the content you are talking about? That avoids suggesting what the effects might be (your concern with "conformer dependent reactions"). But isn't it true that different equilibriating conformers do give different products? For example, the E1 elimination product from 2-bromobutane is mostly trans because that comes from the preferred conformer of the cationic intermediate. But there is still some cis formed, which comes from a less common conformer. As C2-C3 rotates to different conformers, different specific products result. There are preferred geometries for reactants and their transition states, but there are other ways as well. Would be great if the article addresses the specific relationship of the reaction-conformation to the product and requirements for various reactions. Just need to make it clear that these are preferences ("major product" is a common way of describing it in textbooks) and some cases non-preferred things can happen to a small extent.

Regarding the alkyne I mentioned, 1,4-dihydroxy-2-butyne HO–CH₂–C≡C–CH₂–OH is a linear carbon backbone. Now obviously alkyne bond rotation (whether or not one thinks it even happens) is irrelevant because the two alkyne (sp) carbons have 180° geometry. But C1 and C4 (the carbons that have hydroxyl attached) can each rotate about their σ bonds. And the whole molecule isn't linear, just the 4-carbon chain. The result is that you have two tetrahedral (sp) atoms that can rotate with respect to each other. There's a variable dihdedral angle between the two C–O bonds analogous to that in 1,2-dihydroxyethane. As you might suspect, there is a preference for them to be approximately anti to each other--the alkyne just makes a much longer straight-line connection than a normal σ alkane attachment.

So we can says that alkynes don't rotate (or if they do, it doesn't affect molecular geometry) but we can't say that conformational isomerism is only relevant to sp–sp bonds. We can't even say that "one sp compared to another sp" or even "at least one sp σ bond" (i.e., allowing other intervening atoms and bonds). I guess the only real requirement at this level is "a σ bond" (regardless of any atomic hybridization): in addition to butynediol, the other easy-to-overlook case is C2–C3 rotation in 1,3-butadiene. DMacks (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis on the butyndiol conformations.Indeed they stem from the tetrahedral substitution pattern on the two alpha centres and have nothing to do with the triple bond itself.Similarly, the double bond system ends at the four coplanar alpha centers.The s-cis s-trans arrangements in butadiene exist because for each sp2-sp2 part the other part constitutes a non spherical non linear substituent.

On the relationship between product structure and reacting conformer populations.The point I was trying to make was simply that I consider it undesirable to assist somebody in establishing the notion that the most stable conformer gives rise to the predominant product in a mixture of products.It seems to be a reasonable assumption and one that can be verified to correctly predict the predominant product (predominance only, not product ratios) in a number of cases including the bimolecular dehydrohalogenation of 2-halobutane under discussion.Subsequently though, one will face the Curtin-Hammett principle asserting that this is not necessarily so and perhaps the Felkin-Anh model for the alpha chiral induction on carbonyl additions that considers conformer populations as essentially irrelevant.

To conclude ,I think the emphasis must be placed on the stability of the TS# not the stability of particular conformers.If such a formulation cannot be achieved then it should better be left out alltogether.Cleanthis (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

stepping off the soapbox, not a racist

Yes, I agree, that was soapboxing and I apologize. But clearly, in my eyes, there is no racism in that writing, and here is why. Medicaid will not cover a poor young white chap like me making less than 15k yearly. But if I have a minority child, then they are happy to cover me. I believe I clearly made a racIAL comment mind you not mentioning any specific race, but not in any way raCIST. A racIAL comment would be something to the tune of "Black men are singled out and abused by law enforcement." Its a fact man, dont bury your head in the sand. Review medicaid's policies before you call me a raCIST instead of the federal government. With that, I mean no disrespect and realize that I got a little longwinded. How can I get that information in a less personal manner onto the article, or perhaps a different article? I was under the impression thats what wikipedia is all about, regardless of my personal implications in the writing, there were some facts that need to be out there. A response would be much appreciated. - dtringas@gmail.com

Chemistry

Some comments on your edits to "Chemistry".

You deleted "The mole concept is useful to check chemical calculations for consistency, or to deduce relationships of different quantities by dimensional analysis. " and commented "every 'units' term in every context is useful in exactly this way, nothing special". Technically, the mole is a unit like any other, but for other units, nobody mistakenly writes something like 1 g = 5, or would substitute a number for a unit. When the SI system was set up, there was a choice whether to have amount of substance be a dimensionless quantity, or to give it a base unit. It was decided to do the latter, even though the definition of mole talks about number of entities. This is counter-intuitive for the beginning student, but very useful for the chemist. For instance, it is useful that k and R have different dimensions, because k refers to single molecules and R refers to bulk substance. An encyclopedia is not a technical document, it is written for people who sometimes have misconceptions, and it benefits from stating the obvious (i.e. something you could deduce if you know mole is a unit and units have dimensions) by including somewhat redundant information.

You deleted "However, whereas dozen is a dimensionless number, mole is not." and commented "nonsense...your own example doesn't imply any other units differently than the 'dozen' case". I created my account on Misplaced Pages today, but I have 25 years of experience as a chemist. You are the first representative of the Misplaced Pages community I encounter, and I wish you were a bit more welcoming, otherwise you might lose the experts that ensure the high quality of the content. As for the content, it is subtle, but 1 dozen = 12, or dozen/12 = 1, so you can multiply anything by dozen/12 and preserve the content. 1 mol does not equal 6.022e23, and you cannot multiply with 6.022e23/mol and preserve the content. If you multiply the Boltzmann constant k with 6.022e23/mol, you get the universal gas constant R, for instance.

You commented '"amount of substance" is technical term involving moles and number of particles, so "mol/L most common" is either redundant or suggests that "micromoles/L" would be possible but that contradicts amount-of-substance definition.' about my statement "The most commonly used units are mol/L.". There is always a choice to add SI prefixes to an SI unit, but my point was that chemists like to used liters rather than cubic meters. In another revision, I added the SI base units of concentration to make the distinction clear between official base units and what is used in practice in the scientific community.

Theislikerice (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(got knocked off-line before I could respond last night:(

I responded to your major technical concerns on Talk:Chemistry. I apologize if I came across harshly, but what I saw was a new editor changing lots of long-standing content that approximately matches what my students (who I know read Misplaced Pages!) learn with a more technical content that does not match, and that did not have specific origins for this altered content. It's great when scientists edit, it's scary how many kids love to make random "plausible" changes to articles they know their friends read, and it's hard to know the difference. The final concern about units was a problem of consistency in usage. Your later re-wording (after my edits) resolved my concern "moles" (per its definitions) from something that just needs "some molar/amount-of-substance unit and some other volume". That is, the first attempt made it seem like "M" (moles/L) is the fundamental unit of molarity (so why bother saying it's also the most common) rather than allowing "any amount-of-substance unit per any volume unit". That is, now it sounds more like "most people use mol/L, but micromol/pint is okay if you like". My overriding concern (as I mentioned on the article-talk page) was getting technical without leaving an access point for novice readers. Glad someone is adding technical stuff--wikipedia needs writers who know it! DMacks (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

off-site canvassing

Got to be, looks like the 'word' went out last night or some time this morning. I expect we'll get a lot before the end. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Car-brokers link

Hello you gotta read this page now http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Car_brokers_in_Australia. Third paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somesh.bmh (talk • contribs)

Responded there. Odd that a claimed very old contributor wouldn't know about how to use user-talk-pages (vs user-pages where above was posted) or about signing or about starting new sections in talk-pages. DMacks (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A bit of help please

Regarding User:YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels. I have to strenuously protest the block with the rationale of being a Karmaisking sockpuppet. I think I might have been the one to request the Karmaisking SPI, but even at that time I made pretty clear that the "Camels" user had no discernible behavioral likeness to Karmaisking: User_talk:MuZemike/Archive_20#User:YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels. The SPI clerk at the time seemed to have less-than-concrete evidence, though you may be privy to other details. If there are IP similarities, then it's possible they may be IRL friends or some such, but I've become extremely well-acquainted with Karmaisking and really do think User:YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels should be exonerated. If for no other reason than WP:ROPE, I ask for an unblock for the editor. BigK HeX (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

My interaction was Decline reason: "None of this resolves the concerns with your edit habits, which I concur are problematic, so none of this is a reason to unblock." I did not investigate or blindly accept others' claims regarding socking. Essentially, even if it weren't a sock, its behavior rose to blockable levels in its own right. DMacks (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Restore access to Nimbuzz page

Hey, Andi from Nimbuzz here. I see you have deleted our wiki page and now the access is blocked. Can you please restore access to it and undelete the page? Also can you give me an advice on what needs to be done about it so we can avoid this kind of issues in the future. I appreciate your time. Andi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.49.28 (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

1) absolutely not. It was protected from (re)creation because users kept recreating hopelessly unacceptable pages. That's a total waste of Misplaced Pages system- and administrator-resources. 2) WP:CORP is pretty clear. Conversely, the WP:CSD speedy-deletion criteria are as well. DMacks (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Pan Miacek

Hi! Thanks for letting me know.

This is exactly the scenario I have been expecting and why I decided to leave the project. I recently clashed with a number of users, incidentally mostly from Estonia, some of which turned really nasty. One of them was User:Miacek. As I am not a shrink I am in no position to speculate about any mental health issues, but I do consider him a 'loose cannon'. You might want to check with User:Tariqabjotu, whom I asked to block my account, why he has not done so earlier. As I already wrote on my talk page, since it is obviously me who is the problem, you might be better of without me anyway. --Dodo19 (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)