User talk:Nucleophilic

Welcome!

Hello, Nucleophilic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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:Questions, 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!  Nunquam Dormio 08:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobel Prize

I have answered you on the Talk:Nobel Prize page. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Inzelt seems fine to me. I rewrote the entry to try and make it more concise, let me know what you think. I figured it could be expanded on in the controversy and organic polymer sections if necessary. I know we seem to have gone around in a circle, but thanks for sticking with it, at least now we have got a better reference. AIRcorn (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I saw the edit you made on the sections on Nobel Prize. I do not completely agree with your edit their since it made it harder to navigate. The organization and layout has passed a GA review and did not get any opposes on the FA review so it is fitted it looks as it did before.

I changed your citations a bit. According to Wikipedia:Citing sources : Because of the difficulties in associating them with their appropriate full citations, the use of embedded links for inline citations is not recommended as a method of best practice and is not found in featured articles. So I formatted them correctly, I also used the book instead since it is always a better to cite the book directly than a page that is citing the book. If I have cited the wrong pages feel free to correct me!

Cheers --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 19:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please look at Talk:Nobel Prize and Wikipedia:Peer review/Nobel Prize/archive2. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 18:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Left you a new message, please respond if you have the time. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 20:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hello. According to the recommendation of another editor I continued the discussion at Talk:Nobel Prize#Conductive polymers controversy (see comments there). Could you add a short oppose or support there? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Please add your support or oppose to the page. We are trying to get a clear and short consensus. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 20:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nucleophilic, please do not add the section again to the Nobel Prize page, to do so now would be to oppose a clear consensus and a Wikipedia "rule." If you fail to comply with this consensus and still add it you will be reported. But I sincerely hope we do not need to take matters so far. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 18:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"You will be reported " is an empty threat-- my hands here are completely clean. I have been posting on wikipedia a long time and know flagrant rule violations when I see them. Quickly recognizing what was going on, I surrendered the point long ago, merely probing to see how far you would go. Nucleophilic (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

section from nobel prize

Voltage-controlled switch, an "active" organic polymer electronic device from 1973. Now in the Smithsonian Chip collection.

- In some cases, awards have arguably omitted similar discoveries made earlier. For example, the 2000 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for "the discovery and development of conductive organic polymers" in 1977 ignored the much earlier discovery of similarly highly conductive iodine-doped polypyrroles by Donald Weiss and coworkers. and DeSourvill et al as well as an earlier report of an actual organic semiconductor electronic device. For reviews, see . This device is now in the National Museum of American History "Smithsonian Chips" collection.. See figure.

Your post on my talk page

Let me get this right: you're telling me to read an article that I wrote? I agree that it's ironic and there's lots of confirmation bias going on, but not for the reasons you suggest. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

I personally am not bothered, but you attack not only myself, but other editors, in a non-civil way, please stop. Esuzu should not invite me to the Nobel articles talk, and you should not paint it canvassing because we all very well know that I watch those pages and that I was a major participant before his invitation. Materialscientist (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not your participation that I object to, but the fact that you did not correct isuzu when he went WP:canvassing. Clearly unaware this is forbidden, isuzu even announced this on your talk page beforehand and you apparently encouraged it. As he notes on his talk page usertalk:isuzu, he was not getting any response on the nobel prize talk page, where by WP:concensus the debate was supposed to stay. When you took on the mantle of an admin, you also took on several obligations. Nucleophilic (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but. You misunderstand the policy - canvassing would be inviting someone for a discussion which they would (likely) be unaware of without the invitation. Materialscientist (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

True, but it begs the point. Most importantly, there are specific guidelines to prevent canvassing abuses. I won't bore you with another recantation-- See wp:canvassing and wp:concensus. Again, Esuzu broke all these rules. Not only did you not correct him, you also participated. Nucleophilic (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:V

Hi Nucleophilic, I've opened a section here to discuss the sentence you want to add to V. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Note

Just to let your know that by such edits you are losing my respect for you as an intellectual editor. Talk pages are reserved for improving their articles. The polyacetylene discussion is quite settled and in its current state has nothing to do with the Nobel Prize article. You do not have to reply. Materialscientist (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the conversation on talk:polyacetylene is quite relevant to the Noble prize article, if only because it pertains to a Nobel prize, but also because this issue has been the subject of extensive discource on the Nobel prize talk page and possibly might be taken up again.

Otherwise, I am merely attempting to solicit comments by other editors on pages where this subject has been previously discussed or where editors have expressed an interest in the issue. Naturally, in a completely neutral manner, merely drawing attention to the talk page. See WP:concensus. I anticipate additional contributors.

As is my custom, I urge an extensive reading of the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Nucleophilic (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

which is WP:TALK in this case. Nobel Prize and acetylene articles are so different that nobody from Nobel Prize article watchers would delve into that discussion. WP:CHEMS is the place to ask, (if you are keen to learn). In this particular case, the Nobel prize commentary itself acknowledged that conductive polymers were known before Heeger, thus you are trying to break a wrong wall - the issue is not in the novelty, but in that Nobel Prize is not always awarded for a new discovery. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, the issue on the page is the Nobel prize given for conductive polyactylenes. So the subject is directly relevant, as wittnessed by the rather extensive discussion just above on the talk page. And the Nobel committee merely noted the compounds had been work with long before, without a single mention of any work with high-conductivity variations. Surely they would have mention this, if only to head off questions about whether they knew about this work. As for "discovery"--- Nobel's will reads "shall have discovered", the Nobel citation reads "discovery and development". If that is not what they meant, then why say it this way ?. Any other interpretation is OR. Nucleophilic (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Divide

I've re-read this. Note info in "Prize motivation", "Conductive polymers – a surprising discovery" and "Conductive polymers – the story". The reason for the award is unclear and your OR is not better than mine (saying what the committee "must" doesn't help). They accentuate "development" and don't clearly state the novelty - it reads as if the novelty is in the value of conductivity (i.e. what to consider high). Further, "who have revolutionised the development of electrically conductive polymers" and "The choice is motivated by the important scientific position that the field has achieved and the consequences in terms of practical applications and of interdisciplinary development between chemistry and physics." reads to me as the prize was not for discovery. I'm not sure what else can be said encyclopedically about it. Sources on early conducting organics are numerous [1], but listing them makes no controversy on this prize award - multiple reliable sources should question the award itself, not the discovery. Until then, it is moot. Materialscientist (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"The choice" is of "the field", it is not about to whom they gave "the prize". And the well documented "question" is about the "discovery" assignment for (highly) conductive polymers, not the Nobel per se. These days, even the Nobelist's strongest partisans such as Duić ( "..the great trio (Shirakawa, McDiarmid and Heeger).." [[2]] ), fall back on the "development" part of the assignment as its justification, acknowledging the "discovery" part was wrong.

However, the term "discovery" is used repeatedly in the Nobel material. It seems reasonable to assume that they meant, well, "discovery". Likewise, statements like "surprising discovery" in the Nobel citation are themselves surprising about material that was already well-known for over a decade before said discovery. It is reasonable to report this. Nucleophilic (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can only speculate that the Committee doesn't follow the will in its strict sense and adds "discovery" to avoid legal problems (I think there were other cases apart from this 2000 chem award); that they can argue that the nomination line must be brief and thus might be obscure, and then find some novelty in the body nomination text. It is an interesting, but obviously difficult topic to develop (with proper references). Materialscientist (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that deliberate misassignment of discovery credit is unambiguously science fraud. In fact, the Danish definition of scientific misconduct ( "..or a false credit or emphasis given to a scientist" } says so in so many words. The Swedish definition is not quite so definite, but would likely include this in its catch-all definition. Allegedly, the other Scandinavians follow Danish practice here.

I doubt the Nobel committee would deliberately commit science fraud, when they could simply have given the award for the "discovery" of something else, their usual practice in such circumstances. The only other explaination is that they flatly did not know about any of the many previous discoveries of conductive polymers. This is entirely unprecedented, as is the fact that a major texbook in the field devotes a chapter to this error. Nucleophilic (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

We can only speculate on this, that merely serves our own amusement. Anyway, I believe they did analyze past work, maybe not all of it, and decided it was not sufficiently sound. Scientific misconduct is never judged by a definition of a few words - a commission is assigned to evaluate the matter, even a small one. After all, whatever the Nobel Committee is doing, taking it down would not serve the science and society any good. Urging them to improve the selection might be more constructive, but again, without really knowing their inner working (e.g. in this 2000 Chemistry case) this won't be helpful, I speculate. Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for advising me about the various pages. I will follow with interest. Drjem3 (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Me too Pproctor (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Knowing your professional interest in neurosciences and neuropathology, you might want to check out Dissociative identity disorder. We can always use editors who know their stuff. Drjem3 (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Article looks OK

From my rather quick read, your article looks OK to publish. I made one change and may make more later. Also, suggest title be "Peter Proctor" rather than "Peter H Proctor." Also may want to post notices over on melanin, etc. where there may be editors interested. Otherwise, Looks good. Drjem3 (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A tip

"The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents." Jesanj (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments is linked there too. Plus it makes no practical point to have the same thing said in two different places when I was about to reply at the relevant talk page. Jesanj (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

With due respect. You should have said this. Rude to revert without explaining why. BTW, wikipedia depends upon concensus. My experience is that comments sometimes get removed when the subject doesn't want other editors to get wind of a possibly contentious editor. Keeps them from ganging up on him. Not the case here, naturally. Nucleophilic (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Circular

Per WP:CIRCULAR, this is not how WP:V works. Jesanj (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It was the last time I participated in the policy pages. In fact, I have seen editors chided for repeating things on a page that were well-covered and well-cited on another page, rather than just using a wikilink. Admittedly a while ago. Before you started posting here, IIRC. Perhaps it is time I get involved in policy again. Otherwise, it gets left to the POV-pushers. BTW, the business about reverting talk pages is not policy, but merely an essay. Thanks for drawing it to my attention. Nucleophilic (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If you would prefer

To have the history of the preceding edit[3] wiped from history you can request for it to be so. Jesanj (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls

Don't feed the trolls, it just encourages them. Smoke just craves the attention. He knows he has no case and is just being a pest. Drjem3 (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Mendelsohn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Peter Proctor".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 09:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Formal mediation has been requested The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Peter Proctor". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 25 January 2013. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Question: Would you remove your objection to formal mediation if the list of involved editors is rectified? Hasteur (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Answer Would consider it depending on what other editors do. But unlikely. This whole thing has left a very bad taste. First, a simple disagreement that I was making good faith efforts to resolve on the talk page was escalated. I have been here for six years, contributed many edits, including to the various guideline pages, etc. and have have never seen or heard of anything like this, at least not without an editor being taken to task for it. Nor were any other editors allowed the opportunity to add their input to the talk page before this was taken for "mediation". Very tendentious behavior. Editors don't wander by obscure bio pages like this every day. It almost seems like the original editor takes any opposition as reason for such escalation. Very unwikilike behavior. Then we get over to informal mediation involving a "mediator" whose record of posting resembles that of the editor who took it to mediation. Next, another "mediator" with a very bad history here on wikipedia, including accusations of sockpuppetry and tendentiousness. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Noleander. Note that I did not bring up this matter previously ( arguably, a violation of wp:assume good faith), but merely tried to correspond to what he asked. Then another editor signed up seemingly just to pile on. I have seen such banned on AfD's. The final straw is when this gets taken to formal mediation with the editors how supported my POV stratiegically-omitted. Just what is an editor to think. Anyway, I'm tired of this business. Never intended to get so involved. I surrender. I would be interested in an independent ruling on the issue, this is whether wp:blp specifically allows boilerplate info like education and employment to be used in bios. Seems to me that is the exact meaning of the passage. Anyway, it would be almost impossible to do a bio of anyone without using it and this seem general practice. However, this is not the place to do it. Nucleophilic (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Addendum: To make this business even stranger, the editor who initiated this mess, user:chantoke, has changed his name for the second time in about a week. He is now listed as "Vanished user dio0ojse8h3iseofihjoine45y". The mind boggles. Nucleophilic (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Not that I intend to butt in to an otherwise private discussion but Nucleophilic, the discussion (and the mediation request) is not about you or any other editor but is about changing the article to make it reflect NPOV. I am sorry that you feel the way you do. I agree, that we should not add contentious information (and libelous) information such as Dr. Proctor sells hair-oil into the aticle because it may attract a libel suit from the Doctor, but then we should also not add single source information like the contributions of the Doctor I objected to as single source. If we don't, then it will appear that we are promoting the Doctor unfairly. Either way, however the mediation ends, I hope it will make you feel better to know that this discussion or mediation is not intended with any kind of malice directed at you. As far as Nucleophilic having a dark past on Wikipedia is concerned, hey, we all make controversial edits right? Hope to hear from you in the mediation. -Wikishagnik (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Doubltless, you mean user:noleander has the "black past", though it is not so past and the several proceedings reflect things I see here. Similarly, the tertiary sources are right there in the article. Some quoted directly. So what is this all about? WP:assume good faith again---Arguably, expert editors tend to talk a different language and operate under a different set of assumptions than non-expert editors. So sometimes the failure of such editors to get the (obscentity-deleted) point when it is right in front of them can be a source of great frustration. I have heard this called the "Bob from Cincinatti" problem. Nucleophilic (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Nucleophilic you are still refusing to answer questions about whether this Peter Proctor is the same doctor who sells hair solutions (if you know him by reputation or otherwise)and if he is then whether we should also include this information in the article for NPOV. Yes, the academic papers you brought in as source do suggest all points you make but then again I have not come across any source in the article or in Google Books that support such assertions. Yes, their could be peer-reviewed articles but then that still is a primary source. If this subject is an authority in a field then there should be secondary sources that claim so and also say who he is and where he is working right? I mean it isn't a crime for a doctor to sell hair solutions and even if that venture failed and the doctor is stil a notable person then any article on him should reflect this right? I can understand your frustaration with new people and inexperienced editors and people not from the same field but 99% of people who come to Wikipedia are like that and all articles are required to meet quality standards suitable for such editors. Isn't that fair? -Wikishagnik (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC) The various magazine articles state he is an expert in hair loss treatment. Don't recall which ones-- just follow the links. As I pointed out previously on the talk page when another editor tried to put it into the body of the article, this is arguable-commercial material that I am reluctant to put on a biopage. So I and other editors have just left it in the links. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Nucleophilic (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Here is the quote from the talk page: "...Also, his interviews on this subject (editor: hair loss) in (e.g.) Newsweek are cited in the body of the article. If you like, this can be enlarged upon. Similarly, because of the commercial implications, I personally think details of all his patents, etc. should not be in a wikipedia bio. But if you insist. Nucleophilic (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)" This is still my view. Readers can folow the links if they are interested.Nucleophilic (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Edit warring I've reported edit warring at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Nucleophilic_reported_by_User:Noleander_.28Result:_.29. --Noleander (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC) With due respect, you seem to be the one who is edit warring. I have stayed away from the page, after giving in on your original point. Nucleophilic (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC) The edit of yours I am referring to is [4], where you re-inserted material. The sequence was: The material was tagged "citation needed" After two weeks elapsed without a citation being supplied the material was removed You re-inserted the material, without sourcing ([5]) The relevant polices are WP:V and WP:BURDEN. --Noleander (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Request for mediation accepted The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Peter Proctor, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Peter Proctor, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee. As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 11:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC) (Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.) Request for mediation rejected The request for formal mediation concerning Peter Proctor, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. For the Mediation Committee, User:PhilKnight (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC) (Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)