User talk:DMacks

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, DMacks, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! NBS525 22:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! DMacks 01:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brown University

Critical Review (brown)

By the way, just out of curiosity, how and when exactly were you involved with the Critical Review (I assume it was not earlier than 1994)? NBS525 22:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on CR from '93 to '95, first as a writer and later as an editor (or associate editor, or whatever the position was called then:). I still talk to Christopher Anderson at reunion most years. DMacks 01:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any particular reason you did not capitalize "brown" in the new name of the Critical Review article? NBS525 02:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was in a hurry when I did the initial move, mis-typed it. Then later, some combination of not noticing and not caring enough to change it:( Feel free to move it if you like. DMacks 02:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tubulin

Your edit summary was ("highway" implies tubulin is a conduit, not the actual transporter). I don't have a problem with your edit content but it is correct that the tubuin is a conduit. The dynein or kinesin motor proteins would be the actual transporter. David D. (Talk) 07:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the example given, the spindle fibers appear to shorten as the sister chromatids separate towards their respective centrosomes. Is sliding of the kinetochore along the fiber a significant part of the overall chromatid motion? DMacks 07:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point i didn't read the context well enough. I was thinking with respect to organelle transport where it really is a conduit. David D. (Talk) 07:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caffeine

Thanks for the help. :) – Clockwork Soul 15:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ref format

DMacks: I noticed your edits on Tebbe's reagent. Is there a simplified set of instructions on the formatting for references in articles, if not would you write one up?--Smokefoot 15:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magnet

Thanks for the citation on this article! I would like to get your feedback in the discussion I opened regarding the change I just made. Dansiman 05:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acetal vs ketal

I'm very curious about your comment about acetals having a more general meaning that also includes ketals. I've been a practicing organic chemist for 15 years, and I don't think I have once heard someone use "acetal" that way. I'm wondering if it is a geographical or national difference. Anyway, feel free to revert my change if you prefer it the way it was. --Ed (Edgar181) 22:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Topicity

I like your suggestion of merging homotopic, enantiotopic, and diastereotopic into one page. It would make discussion of such obviously related terms more coherent. I wonder if there are mathematics articles that cover similar topics. If so, we might look to them for ideas for organizing a topicity page. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Thanks for doing it. --Ed (Edgar181) 22:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ATAGOusa

I'm sorry! I didn't know this was not ok -- I saw other manufacturers posting the same information about their companies and figured that providing a link was acceptable. I won't post any more links, sorry for the inconvenience. -ATAGOusa

    Although, my company does have a section of our site dedicated to explaining the basic principles of refractometry (reflaction and transparent method) and polarimetry.  It is part of our corporate website, but the scientific information is all correct.  Would that be ok to put up for "refractometer" and "polarimetry"?