User talk:DMacks

Erich Clar page

[edit]

I want to include a synthetic reaction that is known as Clar's reaction. It is of a certain class of cyclic ketones that condense with themselves when heated to 400 C in a mixture of zinc dust and zinc chloride.

I will add references and a description of what it is used for in synthesizing new polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Tech News: 2025-40

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a block

[edit]

You blocked me for no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:77A1:8240:69C0:7E96:2601:9015 (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what block you are talking about, or what specific edit and page you are talking about. Please give a link to the exact article and state the account or other similar information so I can look at its details. But based on your edit-summary, one possible situation is that you did not provide a cite to a reliable source (WP:BLP policy). DMacks (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unrecognized in Page protection

[edit]

I was asking why does wikipedia puts page protection for false information. Does wikipedia follow International law or protocols Dalahow (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROT is the page-protection policy. DMacks (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in Education: September 2025

[edit]

Your revert on "Lena"

[edit]

The author is quite well known, has his own wiki page under his pen name qntm. Please restore the link I provided SnoTraveller (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added an additional note in my subsequent edit, once I figured out who it was. I stand by my position that it should not be included (that was just one of my concerns). If you have additional details, I'd be happy to look at them and see if I would support inclusion. DMacks (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. All I can suggest is that "... in popular culture" sections are common on all sorts of pages. Here a single mention in a short story (one written in the style of WP) obviously doesn't merit a full section, but a mention somewhere is nevertheless apt. I leave it to your judgement, probably much better than mine, as I am not a heavy editor. SnoTraveller (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2025-41

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 17:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2025).

Administrator changes

removed

CheckUser changes

removed Vanamonde93

Arbitration

  • After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g. [[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Threose nucleic acid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prebiotic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bitey?

[edit]

Is there something going on with the user that I didn't see, that explains this warning? It's not clear to me that this user is being intentionally disruptive. His edits seem like an attempt to improve articles. We aren't supposed to dump on new users who are struggling to learn how to edit. -- Srleffler (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warned at the 1 or 2 level, a mile of undone edits, a comment from the editor indicating that they recognized the concerns and would improve. Then they did not, and continued through several more sets of edits that were undone as well ("edit undo, edit undo" is a greater problem than "edit edit, undo undo"). In my experience, that typically means either a substantive language barrier or a failure to be serious about (or actually able to) make a course-correction. Either way, it's multiple failures to change after several different types of alerts about it, so while I'm not 100% sure it's bad-faith, I wanted a stronger hint of consequence than just another neutral request. DMacks (talk) 04:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With a new editor who appears to be trying to contribute, it is often more effective to provide guidance rather than warnings.--Srleffler (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed that's why I did that, and including specific explanation in response to their request for more info about my concern. And they responded that those additional comments were helpful and that they would adjust their edits based on them (specifically labeleing my comments as "guidance"). They then made several rounds of edits identical in form to their previous and not in keeping with that. Then you provided even more detailed explanation of some of their specific edits, why they were a problem, and a clear warning not to continue to do that. Then they continued to do that. Clearly you have higher tolerance for this either in general or in this specific instance. DMacks (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do have patience with new users who seem to be trying. I've noticed that some people are eager to help, but are slower to pick up Wikipedia's customs, style, and Wikitext formatting. We don't want to start out by pushing people away just because they take a little longer to get the hang of it. (And yes, I'm aware of and agree with WP:COMPETENCE.)--Srleffler (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]