User talk:DMacks

please ban Sabbatino for a week.

please amd thank you. 1Luca2 (talk) 05:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done @1Luca2: you will need to provide a reason, such as specific edits they have made and the specific specific policy or guideline being violated by them. DMacks (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

BabuH007

Dear Dmacks,

We are sorry that you judged negative our scientific work but we are a recognized non profit foundation (BabuHawaii Foundation) and MDPI International peer-reviewed Journal advised us to published in Wikipedia to let the community know about our findings.

Just let us know how we can reference our work on the related pages regarding micro plastics and microorganism identification. Looking forward to hear from you soon.

Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaBuH007 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-46

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

• There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Future changes

• You can see reference previews. This shows a preview of the footnote when you hover over it. This has been a beta feature. It will move out of beta and be enabled by default. There will be an option not to use it. The developers are looking for small or medium-sized wikis to be the first ones. You can let them know if your wiki is interested. [1]
• From November 16 the categories will not be sorted in order for a short time. This is because the developers are upgrading to a new version of the internationalisation library. They will use a script to fix the existing categories. This can take a few hours or a few days depending on how big the wiki is. You can read more. [2][3]

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

15:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying up my edit to Isoelectronicity

Thanks so much for improving my edit. I first edited that article in 2016 when I was in my first year of chemistry and just learned about it in depth, and I check up on the page every now and then.

Last night I had a second look and realised that the entire page really needed a rework and obsessively wrote it for 3 hours. Thanks for clearing the edit up and reformatting things so they better fit wikipedia. Means a lot :) Demonicnoobie (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to follow up about it (and pursuing your interest in chemistry). DMacks (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Ulyvoei

Said editor is back adding unsourced information with the atypical edit summaries.[4]

Even edit warring unsourced information into an article.[5] --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I gave them a level4 warning. Let me know if (I know, but I'm being optimistic) it happens again. DMacks (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

On his talk page User:Ulyvoei acknowledged an offer of help but did not acknowledge that Ulyvoei's edits needed to improve, instead claiming to be persecuted. Then at 14:11, 15 November 2020 UTC made this edit which removed "c." from a date without explanation or source, and which also created a contradiction between the info box and the lead of the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I saw that edit and I agree it's a contradiction between the infobox and the first sentence of lead. Later the lead, however, is "His death was recorded by a former follower in the year 1415" (which exactly matches what the article later says). On its face, that could support actually (not approximately) that specific year. What is the Wikiproject Middle Ages or Wikiproject Biography standard for certainty and sourcing regarding this sort of information? This is not a topic-area with which I'm familiar (neither the actual topic nor wiki work). DMacks (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Jr8825 for helping me to see how to read it. DMacks (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

No problem, I also left them a message on their talk page reaffirming what you'd just said. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 17:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Same type edits = Same user? "New user" KitchenScience has made 4 edits concerning date of birth. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Almost certainly. Note (unsurprisingly) their age. WP:CIR? Jr8825 • Talk 22:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The socking is obvious, so we'll block KitchenScience as the newer one. After the sock-warning, they have continued to make content edits as Ulyvoei but not as KitchenScience, so I'm on the fence about blocking that main one for the socking alone. Do content-edits continue to be problematic after several of us gave hand-written explanations on their talkpage? DMacks (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

CU confirmed the match, and also unconvered User:Anonimus305. I support their indef of the main. Enough of this time-sink. DMacks (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note DMacks. Well, dang. I can perhaps understand setting up one additional account in certain circumstances but two??? Not so much. Time-sink for sure. S0091 (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-47

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

• Listings on category pages are sorted on each wiki for that language using a library. For a brief period on 16 November, changes to categories will not be sorted correctly for most languages. This is because the developers are upgrading to a new version of the library. They will then use a script to fix the existing categories. This will take a few hours or a few days depending on how big the wiki is. You can read more. [6][7]

Changes later this week

• If you merged two pages in a namespace where pages can't redirect this used to break the merge history. This will now be fixed. [8]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 17 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 18 November. It will be on all wikis from 19 November (calendar).

Future changes

• The Community Wishlist Survey is now open for proposals. The survey decides what the Community Tech team will work on. You can post proposals from 16 to 30 November. You can vote on proposals from 8 December to 21 December.

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

15:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Short description for Resonance

Hello, i added that short description to Resonance because it is a concept in control theory, which is the study of "the control of dynamical systems in engineered processes or mechanisms". Though it sounds nothing like the concepts in the article, it is about oscillatory processes, as you can see by opening its article here. That page is clearly categorized in Category:Control theory, and that shortdesc has the added benefit of being under the recommended character limits at WP:WPSHORTDESC. I believe if the article does not mention control theory in the lead, then that is a problem we should fix in the article rather than keeping an unusable shortdesc as it currently stands. If you think that description is lousy, though, I'm open to discussing other alternatives to add to that field. Cheers, YuriNikolai (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem I have is that it's not in keeping with how the article is written. Control theory defines itself (paraphrasing:) as maintaining an equilibrium via feedback whereas the resonance article talks about perpetual oscillation at a certain frequency. The cause might in some cases be a restoring force that pushes towards equilibrium, but that's not how the phenomenon is sometimes directly seen. For example, we know that a string vibrates because of the force of being stretched, but that doesn't provide a clean analogy to a standing wave in an organ pipe. The frequency is the key, not the perpetual restoring. And driving a system at its resonant frequency easily leads to it going out of control.

As our article says, the scope is "physics". The control theory article is so full of technical jargon in the intro, a lay reader really might not understand it even if resonance might technically be a subtopic of it. The goal as I see it is to help readers--even non-technically-advanced ones--tell at a glance what the topic is (for example, in a SEEALSO list). The Wikidata description is too long and wordy, but it's at a reasonable readability level and seems closer to the article.

How about how resonance (disambiguation) defines it: "Resonance is the tendency of a physical system to oscillate at great amplitude at certain frequencies."? DMacks (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I quite like that definition, though it is too long (over 40-ish characters) even if we reduce it to "Tendency of a physical system to oscillate at great amplitude at certain frequencies" (84 chars). I propose "Tendency in physical systems" as a shortdesc, it's a bit basic but taking out "at certain frequencies" or other parts of the first phrase would make the description somewhat inaccurate, and the main goal of a shortdesc is to show up in the preview menu when creating links, where an overly long text will be cut. What do you think? YuriNikolai (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that if we mention "oscillate" we have to mention "frequency". Is it necessary to include "physical" and/or "systems"? I think a key idea is the oscillation, as a distinguishing characteristic (vs for example any of the Conservation of ___ laws). What about "Tendency to oscillate at certain frequencies" (45 chars)? DMacks (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Unfortunately, my mop's bar mitzvah will have to wait until the pandemic subsides. DMacks (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Chemistry

Under the topic named chemistry , it is written that atoms retains chemical properties of the element it corresponds to. I want to that does atom show "all" the chemical properties shows by the element? Also want to know does atom not retain physical properties of its element? Vanshita poddar (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)