User talk:EdChem/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

DYK for King Kaluha

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nascent hydrogen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander Williamson. 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) 09:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK

Hello! Your submission of Bis(cyclopentadienyl)titanium(III) chloride at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Best wishes

I feel like I should stop by here and wish you all the best, about your recent health issues. You've been a truly wonderful help at that student page, and I look forward to seeing you back and fit! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Tryptofish. I feel that I can cope with the pain and whatever the complication is because the overall outcome is that I do not have cancer, and nothing can alter that piece of unambiguously excellent news. WP really is an amazing place when we editors are able to genuinely collaborate in an open way and with a spirit of goodwill, though maintaining that is a challenge at times. I am glad that you and I can disagree and discuss / debate different views and yet remain respectful of each other and stay true to the ethos of the place. If this keeps up, I might even be persuaded into running the gauntlet at RfA! Regards, EdChem (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good all around. If misery loves company re: pain, well, I've got my left leg in a brace after an Achilles tendon injury. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Mark Colvin

As I have already explained to another Wikipedia editor called Canley, my change was not vandalism, but correcting inaccuracy and the change of reference I made, so that the page includes the ABC obituary rather than the Guardian obituary, reflected that too: the ABC obituary is scrupulously accurate about Colvin's family situation, whereas the Guardian obituary is inaccurate in that regard. Removing my change perpetuates inaccuracy on a Wikipedia page. Threatening to ban me from Wikipedia because of an attempt to make a page more accurate undermines my faith in Wkipedia as a whole Feneso (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Feneso, I do not have the power to block or to ban anyone. The problem with your edits is that they are not supported by the refs you indicate, neither the ABC nor Guardian obits says what you have added to the article. If you can find a reliable source, you can look to changing the article. I have no idea what Colvin's family situation was, but I do know that Wikipedia must not make statements about it without solid sourcing. EdChem (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The ABC obituary for very good reasons states that Colvin is survived by his two sons and makes no mention of a wife. It is absurd that the two of you have decided you are better judges of this matter than the ABC and, as I said before, this incident has shaken my faith in Wikipedia. It is shocking that a wonderful human being continues to be travestied on the web because two individuals who have no real knowledge of him deem themselves better judges of what is true than his beloved ABC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feneso (talk • contribs)

Feneso, it is possible the ABC obit does not mention his second wife for the reason you suggest, but without a source addressing the issue the issue, interpreting the omission is an example of original research and that is not allowed on Wikipedia. I am not deeming what is ad is not true, I am looking at what the sources say and accepting that. However, recognising your distress, I am willing to start a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard to get input from other editors. EdChem (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

My Apologies

I've struck out my comment at Talk:Conversion_therapy. It wasn't my intention to indicate that people at the LGBT Wikiproject could not be neutral, far from it. I simply assumed that it would be an inappropriate place to ask for opinions on the dispute if it was about the subject article in question (which would be vote-stacking). Naturally, my comprehension of the discussion failed me due to only skimming over the dispute in question and I ended up being completely wrong as well as far off the mark. For that I apologise. Thank you for pointing this to my attention so I could correct my error. Best wishes. -=Troop=- (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for striking your comment and posting here, very classy. Kind Regards, EdChem (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

NPOV issue

Hi, I'm asking you specifically as an uninvolved editor who seems to have their head screwed on to take a look at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Pentecost. Each year Pentecost goes on the main page when it is celebrated (this year within 24 hours) and I am concerned about a spate of recent edits. I may be over-reacting. I just want outside opinions. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Franzboas master account

Since you participated in the discussion about Dennis Brown's block of Franzboas, I'm pointing you to this, which presents some proposals for additional action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Responded and added my comments / thoughts. EdChem (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Just a couple of notes

Thanks for your continuing contributions. Here are some specific and general editing suggestions that you might consider.

• Maitlis's Dewar benzene route is probably a historical footnote. I dont think anyone uses this method (Cp*H is cheap) and the method is not very general. So I worry about WP:UNDUE except in an article about hexamethyldewar benzene.
• As others have advocated, sans serif fonts are probably easier to read, if your software will allow it.
• Keep WP:SECONDARY in mind. Some of these compounds (Cp*2Rh2Cl4, rhodium trichloride) have literally thousands of citations. Citing primary references is a slippery slope down toward selecting history (a form of synthesis), whereas books and reviews keep things neutral.

Thanks for listening.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by, Smokefoot. I've added a couple of secondary refs. I wouldn't mention the Dewar benzene approaches if they weren't the first, and they are mentioned in books as well as being highly cited. There is some interest in the effects of different transition metals, too – Rh and Ir give [Cp*MX₂]₂ complexs, Pt gives [(η⁴-Cp*H)PtCl₂], and Pd gives [(η⁴-CH₃CHXCp*)PdCl₂]. I'm not sure what you mean about fonts, you've lost me on that comment, sorry. You are right that some compounds are in thousands of papers, but when it comes to the synthesis (for example), I lean to something like Inorg. Synth. or the original report, supported with a secondary source (though I admit I have forgotten to add the latter at times). EdChem (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Well thanks for not being bothered. I always worry about sending "advice" to people, because I dont like getting it either and it usually comes across as arrogant. More later. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Smokefoot, I am well aware that we Wikipedians will usually produce better outcomes working together than working alone, and certainly than when warring with each other... of course, some conflicts are necessary when POV-pushing and advocacy gets involved, or in dealing with vandalism. To be absolutely clear, I welcome you stopping by to offer advice as I have no doubt that we share the same goals. However, I must admit that that may not always come across, particularly if I am not feeling at my best. I may not like the advice that I am offered, and even disagree with it at times, but I do try to consider it, reflect upon it, and to respond reasonably.

I know that we see sourcing differently, coming to content from different perspectives. For example, if I see text dealing with the discovery of ferrocene, I expect to see links to Pauson and Kealy's paper in Nature, and Wilkinson and Woodward et al. in JACS, etc. You would likely go for a broad review like (perhaps) Werner's review doi:10.1002/anie.201201598 or Astruc's more recent doi:10.1002/ejic.201600983 or one of the thousands of relevant text books (just on applications: Ferrocenes: Ligands, Materials and Biomolecules or Ferrocenes: Homogeneous Catalysis, Organic Synthesis, Materials Science) or the bioorganometallic focussed one with a general introduction from Chem. Rev. doi:10.1021/cr0101510. I have learned, over time, and certainly with your input, that the benefit for readers is served by including both types of references, satisfying the needs of a general reader and of a more specialised one who wants to see the underlying sources. I should, for example, make use of this article from New Scientist as an easier reference for the less chemically sophisticated, and the early papers here are summarised in Chem. Eng. News.

When it comes to what to include from the breadth of the literature, I still tend to want to cite the source literature but I try to follow what secondary reviews have discussed, and that selection basis may be insufficiently clear at times. For example, in my additions to trifluoroperacetic acid, my selections are heavily influence by refs 5 and 7 (both secondary), though that may not be clear to an outsider.

I do benefit from periodic reminders about WP:SECONDARY. As for the tone of advice, I worry about how I come across as well, and I've become better at recognising that some of us can come across more harshly than intended. I hope that can similarly put aside when I respond more archly than is appropriate. EdChem (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

PS: I genuinely am unclear on the serif font comment. I would appreciate clarification. EdChem (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Sans serif means that the fonts lack embellishments. Am Chem Soc, for example, recommends Helvetica, which together with Arial and Geneva, are popular sans serif fonts. Times, New Times Roman, American Century have little decorative features that, I guess, are supposed to make them look flowery and attractive. But these same features are seen by many as detracting from clarity. Here are graphics with serifs and without (sans):

File:Cp*2Rh2Cl4.png

I'll pursue the discussion on the referencing later. We are probably not so far apart. I also cite primary references in select cases: discovery, Xray, nothing else is available. I dont have anything against the collaboration, I suppose it could only be a good thing, but I like the freedom to not feel compelled to edit. In any case cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, Smokefoot, I see what you mean. I hadn't connected you were meaning the illustration! FYI, I drew the illustration in File:Hexamethyl Dewar benzene reacting with rhodium chloride under acidic conditions.PNG for another purpose many years ago and uploaded to WP in 2010. I wouldn't object if you (or anyone else) redrew it without using Times New Roman. In fact, the scheme could also be usefully extended to show reaction with Zn and CO to yield Cp*Rh(CO)2.

On the subject of collaboration, I didn't mean any formal joint work, just that Wikipedia grows as editors recognise the benefit of listening to input, etc. I consider you stopping by to make some comments, and my considering them, and either of us making changes as a formation of collaboration in action.  :) Cheers, EdChem (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

phenalene

Hallo. This edit you say that its not phenalene. I have no real opinion - but I'm not sure you are right after a Google search? :-), but if you are - then you should take a look at phenalene too. I choice phenalene because the first line says "related to phenalene". (But the new image is better) Christian75 (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Christian75: As our article says, phenalene (C
₁₃H
₁₀) is a polcyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, containing only carbon and hydrogen. Phosphaphenalene is based on a phenalene system but including a phosphorus atom in its structure, and its molecular formula is C
₁₂H
₉P. 1-Phosphaphenalene is shown in File:1-phosphaphenalene.svg, whereas File:Phosphaphenalene.png that was in the article previously, is 9b-phosphaphenalene, and these are not the only possible isomers of phosphaphenalene. I am not sure these systems in isolation are all known, but there certainly are derivatives. Both these isomers are "related to phenalene," but neither actually is phenalene. Does this make sense? OrganoMetallurgy, as the editor who changed the image, do you have anything you'd like to add or correct in what I've said? Also, why not display both images? EdChem (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

PS: I have added to the images, see what you think.  :) EdChem (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I had removed the image of 9b-phosphaphenalene because of the lack of notability of that isomer. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9b-Phosphaphenalene.OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

But if you want to have an image for each isomer, I think that would be fine. I just don't want to leave the impression that the 9b-phosphaphenalene isomer is as important as the 1-phosphaphenalene isomer.OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@OrganoMetallurgy: I am certainly not suggesting that the article on the 9b-isomer being recreated and changed from a redirect. However, on an article on phosphaphenalenes in general, illustrating both of these isomers seems reasonable to me. In the event that the article is developed from a stub, I would expect the content to focus on the 1- isomer because (as I understand it) it is the focus of the reliable sources and the 9b- is only then theoretical. But then, in my (admittedly brief) looking, I've seen more on derivatives of the 1- isomer than on that compound itself. In any case, I have no plans to do the expansion. As Christian75 noted, I changed the label on the 9b-isomer from phenalene (more properly, 1H-phenalene, as DMacks has noted) because that image was not of a phenalene isomer. Shortly after, you changed the image to the new 1-phosphaphenalene illustration. For readers, I think showing the parent PAH and the C
₁₂H
₉P isomers we have available seems helpful / appropriate. I hope that makes sense.  :) Cheers, EdChem (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

PS: I note that having a CAS number might not mean much, but 25043-12-3 refers to the 9b-isomer. This also has articles on other language wikis: sh:9b-Fosfafenalen and sr:9b-Fosfafenalen. EdChem (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

There are four easy isomers to conjure (but only two of them are easy to draw). If only one isomer is really worth writing about, then WP:LEDE says that should be the focus of the main image at the top of the article. But if we're writing about a class, then having multiple members of the class is reasonable. And if the class is mainly known as a niche/special-case derivative of something else that is more known, then I don't object to also having an image of it for comparison, though if the article were more than a stub I would send that to a later section since that other thing is not the actual topic of this article. DMacks (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I've been contemplating what other isomers are possible. I added what I did in line with the current stub-form article, and agree with DMacks that a different arrangement would suit a longer article. If the 1- isomer is the only one worth writing about, I'd name the article for it rather than the class, have a section on its isomers, and add suitable redirects. As for whether the name of the P-centred isomer is 9b- or 9b-, though my experience is that letters like that in names are italicised, I don't care about it enough to fight... and I recognise I may not be correct, anyway. Cheers, EdChem (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

There are four isomers of phenalene itself (see that article's talk-page, whose ref uses roman-type for the "9b" locant). Each has several structurally non-equivalent locations where the P could be placed (for example, 1H-phenalene has no symmetry in its carbon framework, each of the 13 sites is unique!). DMacks (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I found three isomers known in SciFinder (==CAS), and adjusted the lede image-set to be just these. It now illustrates the idea that a given parent isomer can have different P locations, and there are different parent isomers possible, so it now seems less appropriate to list just one of the parent isomers there, and too cluttered to have even one let alone more. DMacks (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I read the thread - And have nothing to add. (I was pinged twice...) Christian75 (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Multiball ping-pong could be quite the spectator sport! DMacks (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bis(cyclopentadienyl)titanium(III) chloride

Hello! Your submission of Bis(cyclopentadienyl)titanium(III) chloride at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

BlueMoonset}, I know I need to get to this. I've got issues in my life and have been only working on WP stuff that is easy, sort of as a distraction. Sorry and Thanks. EdChem (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

EdChem, apologies: I hadn't looked at my pending notifications before commenting on that page based on Antony-22's response; if I had, I probably wouldn't have set 48 hours for a "deadline" for Antony-22 to decide whether the ALT hooks could fly as is. Will this be a problem? If so, just post there and ask for more time. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

This calls for alcoholism!!

"!election", much like our !vote. I would laugh if it wasn't inspiring me to cry. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris troutman, and it will become a call for drinking straight methanol (which I am sure Doc James will confirm is best taken !internally) if Doc James is !returned to his seat on the WMF Board. !Election is sadly appropriate for the situation, especially for a body that has demonstrated great !wisdom in acting for the !(best interests) of the community... just so long as they !SuperProtect their own. I think I'll get some port and celebrate Lewis Hamilton's pole position at the inaugural Azerbaijan Grand Prix, which due to the FIA (who are sadly WMF-like, at times), is the !first time there has been an F1 race in Baku. EdChem (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Disclosing own detail

People are allowed to disclose their own personal details are they not? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Doc James, they are. I made the edit so I could provide a link in the post I just made to the IPs talk page (you should be pinged in it). If the Professor decides to create an account and protect his privacy, there are grounds to removing the personal details. If he creates an account under his own name, or says he wants to remain an IP, then my redaction can easily be reversed. In fact, you can reverse it now if you wish – your user page and all – but if he does want privacy, it means a larger revdel / oversight later on. I favour waiting and seeing his response, but I won't edit war if you choose to do otherwise. Cheers, EdChem (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay sounds reasonable :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 July newsletter

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

ANI

Take a close, long look at my talk page, not just a brief skim, and please strike out your statement that I have caused disruption at ANI. Then take a close look at the group bringing the case against Colonial Overlord. One goes off to warn an activist group, another is a Democratic Party activist, at least one other is a fringe ideologue, none of them are attempting dialogue, they all have a party line to force into the encyclopedia and they are trolling by claiming that any resistance is deadhorse, nothere, etc when that is not the case. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

71.198.247.231, you did cause disruption at ANI by removing a section with an inaccurate edit summary. I took no view on the content of the ANI discussion, though I note your descriptions here do sound like casting aspersions. I decline to strike my comment at ANI which noted my action restoring the section, described your talk page, and expressed my view that admin action against you could be warranted.

I have not looked in detail at the posts by Colonial Overlord, or of those who disagree, or at the dispute at trans woman being discussed at ANI. My point was not that either side is right or wrong or that some compromise is appropriate; it was simply that your removing an ANI section with a "rv troll" edit summary was inappropriate and unacceptable. You were fortunate, IMO, that no admin took action at ANI and the warning from Funcrunch (a level 2 vandalism warning) was mild.

Your talk page does contain a warning from Bishonen, a block from Bbb23, several declined unblock requests, and a warning from Funcrunch. Bishonen has suggested that you have a regular account but are posting anonymously as an IP to avoid your comments being associated with that account, which is not permitted under the policy on sock puppetry. Your first posts were to ANI and I agree with her that your posts show familiarity with Wikipedia and its procedures. I don't know for sure if you have an account, but I have strong suspicions. If my suspicions are correct and your main account is identified, action could be taken against it rather than just temporarily blocking this IP address from editing.

I note your most recent ANI edit that implies the scientific and medical consensus that trans women are women is about public relations or is (as you put it above) a "party line." Such a claim is not only inaccurate but also offensive to transgendered individuals, as are comments like these from Colonial Overlord. MOS:IDENTITY and MOS:GENDERID respect gender self-identification because gender identity is now understood in ways that it was not in the past. You are entitled to hold a different view, but you are not entitled to force that view into article space against reliable sources or to use talk pages as a forum.

I strongly advise you to reflect on your actions and moderate your approach otherwise I expect you will earn further blocks. EdChem (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Offensive? Seriously? You are claiming that an argument that wikipedia should not be taking a side on this philosophical and ideological issue is offensive? Not just that you disagree with the argument, but that merely making the argument is offensive? Colonial Overlord (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Colonial Overlord, I'm stating that declaring that trans women are not women is offensive, both to trans women and to anyone who understands the prejudice and discrimination they face. You can say that there are plenty of people who don't accept that trans women are women, which is sadly true. This is not a philosophical or ideological issue, it is an issue of science and medicine. Gender is a matter of identification not a matter of biological sex or genetics. You might not like that that is the consensus that the experts in the field have reached, but that does not give you or anyone else the right to violate the BLP policy by deadnaming or by denying any transgendered person their gender identity. This applies both to article subjects and to editors here on WP. The situation is akin to saying a bisexual person is actually gay or lesbian but hiding or in denial, or that a lesbian or gay person is mentally unwell because of their sexual orientation. Whether someone making such an argument realises that it is offensive to people in the categories being described, it is. Please, try and imagine that you were transgendered and had lived much of your life in a body that does not match your identity, and reflect on how your words would sound. I know it is difficult for me as a cisgendered man to imagine what that experience would be like, but I have tried to understand and I accept what those who are transgendered say about the experience.

FYI, on the issue at trans woman, including the disagreements over transgenderism as part of the article is appropriate and in fact necessary to be consistent with WP:NPOV. However, it does not belong in the lede sentence or in the lede when it is so short. If it were up to me, I would alter the lede sentence to make the issue of gender v. sex clearer. Your making the argument that the controversy should be covered is fine. Arguing for it to be in the lede was fine, initially, but it is now clear that consensus is strongly against you and so you should accept that in relation to the lede (and particularly, the lede sentence). If the coverage in the rest of the article is inadequate (I haven't checked), then argue for expanding that using reliable sources in a neutral way. If I think it is inadequate or you present relevant material not covered, I'll be happy to support its inclusion to make for a more complete article.

I hope that your intent was to improve the article and not to push your beliefs. The diff I linked comes across as the latter, and I do find the argument "trans woman are not women / real women" offensive, but I'll accept your word if that was not your intent. EdChem (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello EdChem. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Kudpung.  :) EdChem (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Bis(cyclopentadienyl)titanium(III) chloride

IronGargoyle (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Based on your efforts, I will strive to be a little more careful with the citation format, starting with the cite encyclopedia format. The nonbreaking space is another improvement on my list, for when I quote units. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to be able to help. I've learned a few tweaks over time that I think work well.  :) EdChem (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello EdChem, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

• Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda Arendt! EdChem (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Your comment on my editing

Hi. I would lik to avoid going off-topic to the ArbCom case. As yoy see from edit history, I did 5 changes to the article. Only 1 was via AWB. I itrodcued an error to the page and I fixed almost instantly. My apologies for that. Then you took over and I did not touch the article further.

AWB was not even used as a broswer in the 4 our of 5 edits. I used Chrome. I clicked an early save on the page. I changed borswer recently and I do't have a speelchecker installed. No fnctionallity of AWB odes the mistake I did. This is my sole work. My apologies again and err is human. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Magioladitis, you made one AWB edit which changed one error to another. Your attempt at a correction was not made until after it was noted at the ANI thread, and still left text that was grammatically incorrect. The three edits improving a reference were helpful, and I understand how you made a typo in the parameter – we all make mistakes and errors, and we are all human, as you note – though your edit "fixing" a typo with a different typo is suggestive of editing too rapidly. Having said all of that, of course I accept that your intentions were good and you corrected your own reference error, and I am sure my own editing history includes mistakes that I hope I have also noted and corrected or addressed when others pointed them out.

As you may have noticed, I was further copyediting my case request page comments to add context as you were posting here. Hopefully these have made my intent clearer and are more balanced. For your information, though, my concern both at the ANI discussion and in my case page post is about your responses to criticism. In the ANI thread, I felt you were defensive (understandably) and more concerned with arguing for your edits than engaging with the concerns raised. Similarly, my comment (and xaosflux's) were about the rapidity of edits leading to mistakes being made rather than the ease with which they can be fixed. Further, I felt disappointed that you made a comment that implied my contributions were unhelpful, and did not directly address / alter this comment even when I had made a substantive update to all the references (including locating archived urls for dead links and correcting the book ref to recognise its actual source).

I don't have a formed view of your work, Magioladitis, nor have I taken a view on your sysop status. I have said that the ANI discussion should be considered if ArbCom takes a case, which I think is fair. I do encourage you to consider how you can work more collaboratively / cooperatively / collegially, however, as I think you come across as somewhat prickly at times. I hope you can see my comment as intended as constructive feedback and that there are issues around individual edits and around how you respond when concerns are raised, and the latter (a behavioural issue) is more problematic. Regards, EdChem (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

After all this time of fixing articles on Wikipedia, I have formed an idea of who actually spends time fixing articles. I have seen that you spet several hours per day improving articles. There were many occassions that a syntax error was reported and before I get to the page to fix it, you have already been there and fixed it. To make this as clear as possible: My comment to you in the ANI it was a request for help to someone I knew that could fix things. As you may recall that day I have spent several hours by non-stop quick reviewing pages and pressing Ctrl+S. I was almost exhausted and about to stop editing when the ANI started. I was even making typos when responding there due to my exhaustion and effort to reply to everyone. I was in need of help to address the issues raised. I was very pleased when you started improving the page. My apologies again that I gave the impression I was critising you. Many great thanks for your contribution to the project and for helping in the ANI discussion with your remarks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Magioladitis. I did not read your post at the time as a request for help, but I am glad to hear that was your intent. Around the same time, on another ANI thread, I was described as being WP:NOTHERE, a perspective endorsed (and subsequently struck) by another admin, so my perspective could have unduly negative. I am glad we have had the chance to clarify what you meant. EdChem (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yesterday, I was in a workshop about emoticons. The main idea was tha sometimes text is misread and fails to give the real emotions a person wants to express to another. The same text can be read as a pollite message and impollite message depending on various factors. I found one of my emails to a friend commenting this edit of yours as an example of things we should add to AWB. Happy editing! -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with you on the problem of reading emotions into written text, especially online. I add ":)" to posts at times when I am concerned about how a comment may be interpreted, but it is still easy to come across in a way you do not intend – especially when there is a surrounding context like an ANI thread. Regarding the edit of mine you mention, I have no recollection of that edit or article, so I'm not sure what caused me to run across that error, though I do tend to fix simple errors when I see them. Having never used AWB, I don't know what it can and can't do, so I am unable to comment on whatever you might have been discussing – and to be honest, I am surprised it was worth an email discussion!  :) I know there are typos that I make regularly, I have gone back to correct "jpurnal" in an edit window or after posting on many occasions, so we do all certainly make mistakes. My concern at the ANI was not that you made mistakes, it was the issue of not acknowledging or recognising them. In any event, I will link to this discussion at the case request as I think this conversation is a much better example of collegiality and the temperament that is desirable for good admin accountability. Regards! EdChem (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maglioladitis 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maglioladitis 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 6, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maglioladitis 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you interested helping expand a stub I made?

Specifically Tetrahydroxydiboron. I'm asking because I liked your edits to another stub I created ((Diacetoxyiodo)benzene). OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi OrganoMetallurgy, I'm happy to help but still have plans to add the PIDA article, and will then nominate it for DYK. Do you have access to structure drawing software? EdChem (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Not really. I'm currently using an IPad as my main device, and I don't think there's any available. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. I've done the basic tidying of what is at the B
₂(OH)
₄ article, if you want to have a look. EdChem (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine. Also a correction to my earlier statement. I do have the necessary tools, but they're somewhat limited (they're mostly fine for drawing single molecules but can't be used to draw multistep reactions), and I can't upload them in any format besides .jpg without the use of another computer. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328, and congratulations on your elevation to mop-wielder. :) I hope you appreciated the humour in my !vote (assuming you read the complete RfA), and though I thought some levity was ok in the circumstances, I do hope you continue as a content contributor. I am sorry that my comment to Barbara (WVS) / Bfpage in the neutral section was taken much more harshly than I intended, especially as it was unnecessary for me to comment as the issue would have no effect on the outcome of the RfA.

Barbara, I am also a content contributor, and I have asked questions at the Teahouse as an experienced editor too. For the record and to be clear, I did not mean to suggest that the comments made to you in this thread were acceptable, because they were not. In looking for your conflict with Cullen, I did notice your many helpful contributions to the Teahouse, and offer my thanks for your many contributions to WP. My point was that it was not Cullen who treated you poorly, but I should have made clear that you were treated poorly and that you have made many excellent contributions. I apologise to you, Barbara, for not expressing myself clearly and for causing you offense. EdChem (talk) 05:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, EdChem, yes I read every comment and yours was amusing. Barbara (WVS), I am sorry that you had a bad experience at the Teahouse last year, and that you got some static at my RfA as well. Though the Teahouse is designed for new editors, any editor is welcome to ask good faith questions there. I wish there was a Teahouse for new administrators. Thanks, Barbara, for your kindness on my talk page. If I have been abrupt with you in the past, I apologize. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

What a couple of charming gentlemen. I hope we get to meet one day. I still want to stay away from RfAs - they are so, well...stressful. About a Teahouse for new administrators I like that. Written communication is so difficult some times. I probably wouldn't have been so miffed if I had gotten a good nights rest and not trusted my brain to recall my editing history. Seriously, I don't know if my past will ever disappear...I suppose it is a type of diary. Ramble, ramble,rample..._ramble. Please, feel welcome on my talk page and leave comments. For some reason I feel extra contentious lately and I need to change.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 23:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Barbara (WVS) / Bfpage. We all live on-Wiki with a past open to others to see, but I only looked into yours looking to understand your comment, and saw nothing that bothered me, for the record. Regards, EdChem (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment

Thank you ever so much for the walloping great dollop of common sense you just put on the page. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Dweller... I'm not sure I was going for a walloping dollop, but if that's how it appears, so be it!  :) I wish I had more confidence in ArbCom thinking through the consequences of broadening a restriction in response to an uncontested request for clarification and narrowing due to existing over-broad interpretation.  :( EdChem (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm optimistic they'll get there. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment violates spirit of Wikipedia

While searching Wikipedia for acid-base ideas that could be used for this upcoming semester in my college class, I came across the graph on the ECW model page. I think it is a clear way to present that there's no clear-cut acid or base strength ordering. While reading this page, I looked at the history comments. I was under the impression that comments made on Wikipedia we're supposed to be unbiased and not personal. But this seems to be violated by somebody with the username smokefoot.

I found this on Wikipedia:

Editors should treat each other with respect and civility Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and don't engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages, follow dispute resolution procedures, and consider that there are 5,453,704 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss.

Since you are an editor associated with chemistry, you may have some clout on removing and preventing personal comments like this. Based on the above Wikipedia statement, the comment "as infuriating and self promoting as Russ was" by Smokefoot violates this spirit and should be removed.

Golfpro996 (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement length at Arbitration request page

Hi, EdChem. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 08:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Amortias, I have shortened the statement, as requested, but I agree with TRM and Dweller that including comments / replies stretches the definition of "initial statement" in a quite absurd way. Removing a comment addressed to another editor (as I have done) leaves that editor's response out of context, which I have tried to address, but I think there is a broader issue here for case management that is worth considering more carefully. EdChem (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello EdChem, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 13 September 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Mkdw ^talk 05:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 September newsletter

Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello EdChem, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello EdChem, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Nicotinamide to 2-chloronicotinonitrile.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nicotinamide to 2-chloronicotinonitrile.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)