User talk:DMacks/Archive 40

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 35 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 45

Tech News: 2018-51

20:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)



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

Makes sense in the context of defining the term "diene" itself. With the content I added to the intro, I am comfortable that readers can understand that a "diene" itself can be embedded in a more complex structure. DMacks (talk) 07:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. — Assaiki (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

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

Allyl glycidyl ether (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Cross-linking
Diene (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Substructure

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

Merry Christmas

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello DMacks, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,

Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Editing concern

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

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

Changing Czech Republic to Czechia.

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

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

Naming firm page reversion

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


Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markskoultchi (talkcontribs) 16:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markskoultchi (talkcontribs) 21:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

User talk:

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

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

users are not welcome to change others' talk page comments (only the original author or the user whose talk page it is). DMacks (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
But DMacks, when the original IP user removed content from its talk page, you reverted it and subsequently pulled TP access. I've been observing this LTA for some time now and have come to the realization that these silly talk page edit wars generally aren't worth the trouble. Sro23 (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I was treating it as a seeminly fertile honeypot. But this LTA isn't one of my pets, so I'll defer to how you think they should be handled/ignored. DMacks (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-02

18:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Hilda Ranscombe

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

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

Metallophilic interaction (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Element and Heavy metal
Aurophilicity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Element

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

Tech News: 2019-03