Jump to content

User talk:DMacks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Z1 Storage (talk | contribs) at 14:32, 5 May 2021 (→‎Z1 Storage). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Yo Ho Ho

Molecular orbital

Thanks for reviewing my edits to Molecular orbital. Since then, I have tried to make the article exactly agree with the source, as well as eliminate the circular definition. Please take another look at what I did. Thanks again. Comfr (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Comfr: looks good! I like the clearer distinction between the plain-language adjective (the idea of "orbits" being old) vs the novelty of the noun. DMacks (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dimethanospiro(2.2)octaplane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Methylene.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Electronegativity

Dear DMacks,

The article was published in Nature Communications the most important scientific journal in the world. This work on electronegativity actually is the most downloaded and by editor of Nature Communications was considered the best article for inorganic and general chemistry. There is nothing to promote simply to add the new scale that defeated the Pauling scale which it is full of errors. So, please put back my changing.

Best, Christian.

While the limitations of the Pauling and other scales are well-known, it's not enough for someone to publish a majorly new approach in a major journal. Nature Communications does not seem to have nearly as high an impact factor as others ("most important scientific journal in the world", vs Nature or Science?), and merely being published is nowhere near sufficient for Wikipedia no matter what the publication is. Again, WP:PST is policy here: secondary sources are required, no matter how prestigeous the primary source might seem to some people. The nature of Wikipedia is to be conservative and wait for a new topic to become noticed in the field, not just be published originally. The whole goal is that many readers here are not knowledgeable in such a specialized field, so there need to be publications from independent authors to avoid undue weight bias. The extreme example of why this is important is the well-known reproducibility crisis of studies even in high-impact sources. There's no deadline--if your new approach is becomes more noticed in the field, not just published once and generating press at the time, easy enough to include it (along with those secondary refs to help give context and validity to it). DMacks (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in Education: April 2021

This Month in Education

Volume 10 • Issue 4 • April 2021


ContentsHeadlinesSubscribe


In This Issuse

21:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Hi, I'm not adding the inappropriate content. The content is 100% original and unique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErTaneja (talkcontribs) 07:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RS, the standard guideline for what constitutes a "reliable source". Blogs and other self-published content, while often original and unique, don't meet the standard. DMacks (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New article verification

Hello DMacks, it's me Space Chinedu I am sorry for the trouble I have given you and you are right I need to start writing things in my own words. So I did just that and created a new article in my sandbox. Please, I want you to check the new article that I created in my sandbox and see if it is up to Wikipedia standards. If there are any problems or anything you would like to add let me know. If the article is okay let me know so that I can paste it as a new article on Wikipedia. The link is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Space_chinedu/sandbox. I really appreciate if you verify the new article I made. Space chinedu (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has been moved and it is now an article. But still verify it please Space chinedu (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page appears to have been moved to Anthene rhoko, where User:Yamla deleted it as copyvio. DMacks (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Z1 Storage

Hello there, hope all is well. I'm unable to find the contest deletion button, Any advise :) Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z1 Storage (talkcontribs) 14:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1 Storage: We can talk here if you like. The goal of your user-page appeared to be to document you and your company with an eye towards getting the word out about it. It was reasonably identified as self-promotion by User:Viewmont Viking, an assessment with which I agreed. Please see WP:YFA, in particular, the strong advice against writing about anything with which you have a conflict of interest. Don't even bother starting until the topic is notable. Wikipedia isn't facebook, where every company can get a page. DMacks (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DMacks: I understand, perhaps not the right way for me to go about getting the word out, but my intention was to only add us as S3 Compatible Data storage under the Amazon S3 page, however that was rejected too. I already see Wasabi, Backblaze on the list, so I thought it would be fine. Anyways, thanks for the advise and your time.--Z1 Storage (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]