User talk:EdChem/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Hungarian GP vandalism

Well spotted! I hadn't noticed that extra bit of vandalism we missed. I've gone back to the last good version - you can do that on any article via the history page, comparing the current version with any previous version, then reverting to the latest pre-vandalism version. Cheers :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

ok, thanks. :) EdChem (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK on Hans Freeman

I'm sorry, but I don't think this qualifies, unless you can do a fair amount more expansion very quickly. Normally, I'd be all in favour of handwaving on a nice article on a biochemist, but we're drowning in backlog at the moment -- and have been for several weeks with no end in sight -- so I fear the rules need to be strictly applied. Next time, nominate as soon as you get to 5x expansion; you can always improve the article further while it sits in the queue. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to your comments at T:TDYK. I don't agree that the expansion is 2.8x, it's actually about 21x, turning an under 400 character stub into an over 8000 chracter article. Please reconsider. EdChem (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hans Freeman

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

PF6

Congrats on your two DYKs; the rhodocene article in particular is very nice, as is the article on PF6. Perhaps you can mention the 31P and 19F NMR spectra of PF6, since they are often routinely measured. I would comment on it, but I don't have institutional access to journals for now. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you like them. Would you re-class the article, now it isn't a stub? I am planning on nominating hexafluorophosphate for another DYK, and hadn't thought about NMR spectroscopy as an application - I 'll check on it later today. Regards, EdChem (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The NMR spectra are probably not very interesting apart from the doublet and heptet expected, but they are usually routinely measured anyway simply because it's easy and it's somewhat obligatory.

Generally, anyone is able to assign classes to articles, while people who are substantially involved in the article should probably refrain. I don't assign classes much, so I'll prefer to leave it to those who are usually involved. Walkerma (talk · contribs) and Wimvandorst (talk · contribs) are usually the ones doing that around here. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

For your convenience, if you wikilink Anal. Chem., it should go to the right place. If it doesn't, you can always create the redirect on-the-spot. Saves a lot of typing? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Attention and participation

As you'd responded to this at an earlier date, I think your attention and participation is invited here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notification, I have commented there. EdChem (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; will work on the point you've raised - I agree that R&I should have had more since last week. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hexafluorophosphate

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

For the heads-up. Cheers, · Andonic ^Contact 20:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for rhodocene

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed your request for a paper on the talk page of this article, do you know about Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request? If you post there then I'm sure someone will get you a copy pretty quickly (I've looked myself but can only get papers after 1994 in that journal). Smartse (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion... will follow it up. Regards, EdChem (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

APAP overdose & A Question about admin pages

This goes back more than a year, but perhaps you recall the discussion about APAP where I had specified the usual amount needed for a fatal overdose?

I should have pointed out that I obtained the information from a package insert that came with a Darvocet prescription. I wasn't sure how to cite that as a source or if such a thing is considered a legitimate source at all.

I realize this is coming out of the blue but a lot family stuff happened last year (three close relatives died within 6 months and that's just for starters) so I never got around to discussing the issue with you. It's old news so I'm not going to rehash it except to ask if a policy was every adopted about the placement of such information in articles?

I also have a question: is it forbidden for ordinary editors to post on Admin pages (such as the ones in which you raised the issue in question)? I don't want to get all the admins mad at me at once (lol). I'm good at p*****g people off; I don't want to get any "better" at it.

PainMan (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A wikipedia post-script: exactly how does one become an admin? Thanks.

PainMan (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi PainMan, nice to see you again, and yes I recall the discussion. As far as I am aware, the opinions came down to the inclusion / exclusion of such information is an editorial judgment. If it is verifiable and from a reliable source then the question becomes is it "encyclopedic" information to provide. One could argue from WP:NOTCENSORED that the potential for misuse is not a sufficient reason for exclusion; equally, considering WP:NOTHOWTO, it can be argued that an encyclopedia should not be a 'how to' guide to suicide by overdose. These are both arguments from the same policy, but they support opposite conclusions, which is why it comes down to judgment. I lean towards excluding the lethal dosages of common substances, especially as X pills, but that is partly because I have a friend who is only alive because he stuffed up his suicide by overdose attempt. Does that help?

As far as editing "admin" pages, editors are encouraged to participate in all parts of the wiki. There are some "admin only" areas, and "arbitrator only" areas, etc, but they are rare and each is marked. Certainly pages like WP:ANI and WP:AN are open to anyone. If you do accidentally post into a restricted area, you will likely get a message on your talk page not to do so again and your comment will be moved to an appropriate section. Unless you are thought to be being deliberately disruptive, no one is going to get uptight / stressed about inadvertantly posting where you shouldn't. Whatever page I edited that you mention was certainly not admin-only; after all, I'm not an admin. Remember also that being an admin is supposed to be no big deal, so there are not supposed to be major distinctions between editors and admins... how true that is in practice I leave for you to judge for yourself.

The policy on admins is described at WP:ADMIN. The process is called an "RfA", Request for Adminship. If you are thinking about becoming an administrator, I suggest you watch how RfA's run for a while and read some old ones (successful and unsuccessful). RfA's can become truly nasty and akin to a trial-by-fire. I had a look at your editing record, and my opinion (for what it is worth) is that you would not pass at present. Objections would be raised about your edit count, your lack of contributions to wikipedia space, and about your breadth of policy knowledge. In short, I advise treading lightly in exploring around RfA because it can be an unpleasant part of wikipedia. If you want to ultimately become an admin, maybe you could consider asking for a mentor who might help you develop more policy knowledge and WP-space participation. I see no reason that you couldn't ultimately pass an RfA, but I think it would not happen at this moment.

If you want to ask anything else, I'm happy to respond, but I do advise you to remember that I can only offer one editor's perspective, and my view is obviously coloured by my experiences (both on and off wiki). I have explored into some of the nastier bits of this place (like ArbCom) so I may be less positive in my views than others you might ask. Regards, EdChem (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Rhodocene

I just finished up the GA Review on this article. There's just a few things to fix up / add and then it should be all good. Canada Hky (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I appreciate being notified, and also the comments in your review. I look forward to making some improvements to the article shortly. EdChem (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a difference between rhodocene and 1-rhoda-1,1'-spirobi[pentacyclo[2.2.0.0^1,3.0^1,5.0^2,6]hexane?--Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure what that name represents. However, the "hexane" at the end makes me doubtful that it could be rhodocene, as the cyclopentadienyl rings have 5-carbons each and hexane is a 6-carbon system. Where did you come across the name, maybe it would be easier to figure out with its surrounding context? EdChem (talk) 08:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, which part of the name don't you understand? On -hexane: it represents the total number of non-hydrogen atoms composing the parent group of the spiro group, including the spiro link itself, as in one rhodium and five carbon.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not convinced that a spiro compound with a 5 carbon ring bound to rhodium would be named as a "hexane", but admit I could be incorrect. So, I have posted the question here at the WP:CHEMS talk page, so others may have a look.  :) EdChem (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

@EdChem: within that set of nomenclature rules, yes, it would be a pentacyclohexane. Imagine trying to name triethylrhodium in organic nomeclature, you could come up with 3-ethyl-3-rhodapentane (not a very useful name, but "systematic"). But...

@PlasmicPhysics: Yes, there's a difference between the two names, to do with the number of electrons involved in bonding to the rhodium, as I've explained on WT:CHEMS. Physchim62 (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Physchim. I accept your explanation, but still find that approach to naming makes me uncomfortable. Expanding on your suggestion, triethylamine is N,N-diethylethanamine rather than 3-ethyl-3-azapentane. I would think of the organic name would be something more like Rh, Rh-diethylethanrhodane (or similar). I guess I am just uncomfortable thinking of "hexane" as 6-atom chain instead of 6-carbon chain. Anyway, thanks for the explanations both here and at WT:CHEMS. EdChem (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, now I know.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

A message regarding everything recently

Hi EdChem. By now you obviously know who I am thanks to the various interactions we've had. I want to take the opportunity - now that things are calm - to thank you for your level-headed nature and your help with my DYK hooks over the last couple of days. As you well know, the help with the hook, prior to the incident last night was greatly appreciated, and last night was even more so.

I realise I made it perfectly clear that I wasn't happy with the conduct of the hook "commenter" and the two sarcastic admins involved, but tempers were high at the time. I'm just glad you were there to pass on a couple of comments that kept things from boiling over further, so many thanks.

As for your most recent suggestion for Mairbek Taisumov, I'd be happy to work with you on that, should you be able to spare the time/patience etc. I've commented at the relevant area and look forward to your response. Thanks again for everything. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments; it is gratifying to find that my thoughts / suggestions were valued. As far as the Mairbek Taisumov DYK, I am sorry that I didn't get to see your responses until too late. That is a problem for me, my timings are unpredictable. My health isn't exactly 100%... at this moment I have a lump on my head as a result of having unexpectedly passed out and collapsed onto something hard.  :( However, if you want to discuss a collaboration recognising that limitation that needs consideration, I would be willing. I don't know much about MMA but my experiences with DYK have been more positive than yours, I can write fairly well, and I have some experience with the more regimented areas of the wiki. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: You can use the E-mail this user link to email me if you want to talk off-wiki (perhaps via gmail-chat, that way we could talk in real time). Up to you.  :)

Ok, I've finally got a few minutes spare, so I'll address this. However, first, just a small explanation behind the Audinwood article. The "Ultimate Fighting Championship" needs to be as such, before the UFC is a company. English terminology isn't my strongest point sadly, but I think it might be a proper noun (hoping that's the right term). Now, as for Mixed Martial Arts vs. Mixed martial arts. Honestly, I don't have a huge preference, so I've left those as is. There was an old discussion about it on my talk page, but I think I may got rid of it when I blanked the page a while back. My own impression is that it's the name of the sport, so falls under the same category as the Ultimate Fighting Championship.

Now, as for the message above, I know what you're going through. I used to have that same problem, it really screwed my degree over :(

I'm not sure what "However, if you want to discuss a collaboration recognising that limitation that needs consideration, I would be willing" means, I'm afraid. Paralympiakos (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

OK... I accept UFC is a proper name, and I'll look into MoS about MMA. Sorry to hear you have had similar problems, I hope they aren't as serious as mine. What I meant by "However, if you want to discuss a collaboration recognising that limitation that needs consideration, I would be willing" is... I'm willing to discuss collaborating, but you would need to accept that my available may be erratic / unpredictable for health and other reasons, because that is a limitation I can't do anything to change. My accident earlier tonight came as a substantial surprise, and an unpleasant one, but such is life... EdChem (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

That's no problem. I'm around most days, so if you want to ever approach me first, about making collaborative changes, then I'm cool with that. Thanks again for the help at the moment. Are we going to go with a Sept 25 hook for Audinwood? Paralympiakos (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This, This etc......good man! Forgot about those, so thanks for the cleanup! I figure since you're looking at my talk page slightly less frequently than last week, I'll put it here. I'm up for that 5 man hook if you are, within the next few days. I have a few work commitments first, but once they are over, I may well have the time, but it will be difficult to whip out 5 of them in short time. You cool with that? Paralympiakos (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

First, no problem with the "cleanup" as you put it, everyone pitching in to help makes the 'pedia better and all that. Second, I'm happy to work with you on the 5-man hook. But, I think we shouldn't worry about the tight time frame, because we should work in user space. Then, when all five are done, move each to article space and nominate. The 5 day rule at DYK doesn't include time in user space, so it doesn't matter if the 5 take 10 days (or whatever) to get ready, and it maeans others won't edit them when things are only partly done. Sound sensible? EdChem (talk) 10:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Si patron. I'll get started on the first one on my sandbox 1 later tonight. To save you typing, it's easily linked on my main userpage. I think I'll be starting with the Ukrainian guy (think that may be Mols). Will keep you informed. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It's better to start each on their own page, like User:EdChem\NAME, because then we just move (not cut and paste) the page to article space, and the history goes with it. We want the history, so it shows we both worked on each article. Make sense? PS: I'll start another one (not sure which), maybe try doing a table (it's something I need to learn / practice) EdChem (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

True, but I'm trying to avoid is becoming one of those people who has about 20 different subpages of their userspace. Not quite sure what significance the history has. We both know that we'll have created them together etc. Anyway, if you do start with a table for one of them, then just follow the template of my newer articles, as a lot of people tend to put in unnecessary data, such as "text:style=align-center;", which is completely unneeded, when "align=center" suffices. A note as well, this is your best way of finding the fighter in question. If in doubt because of duplicates (I'm not sure there will be with names like theirs), then look at the fighters who have at least two appearances for "M-1 Global/Selection etc"

I may take Gugen...something and Sultanakhmedov for a start. I'd say if you want a short one, go with Moks, as there's only 7 completed and 1 future fight to put in. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You won't end up with extra user space subpages, because once the article is done, the page is moved to article space so it isn't in your user space any more. As for the history, it matters (ultimately) for the GFDL licensing to show who is the source for what. Writing in user space and then cutting and pasting is fine for a single editor, because the paste attributes the work, but if we have both made edits and then one of us cat-and-pastes it to article space, then whoever does so is asserting (falsely) being responsible for it all. To collaborate, we really should keep the history otherwise an admin has to history merge later on, etc. Further, for our purposes, it is what we need to prove at DYK that we did all the work together. Think of it like having the Sherdog reference after the table - life is much easier if we just comply with what they expect. EdChem (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC) PS: Thanks for the advice on the table work.  :)

Fair enough then. Didn't fully read the userspace move bit. How do we prove at DYK though? The template for hook suggestions is a single author, I thought. I did start the Sultan user space draft, but as I was changing tabs to look at sherdog, I hit search on my google toolbar. Drives me freaking crazy when I do that, as without a preview save, it wipes the entire work. I've done that a couple of times before after working for an hour. P.S. tomorrow night, I'll be on 18, but that's still short of the 25 that we're each aiming for. Gonna have to bulk up with two before late Oct when this hook goes live. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Look at T:DYK/P2 right now, you will see two articles (Paul Sidney Martin and Paul S. Martin), each with two editors getting creation credit (with the DYKmake rather than the DYKnom template). How we get it right on the nomination page can be sorted later, as this demonstrates that a single hook can give two credits to each of two users for the two articles in it.

As for you getting to 25, good luck - I'm not so stressed about how long that takes for me, I only have three at the moment. EdChem (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok then. Anyway, User:Paralympiakos/Magomed Sultanakhmedov is my start. Figured I'd let you do some if you want to, because that way it's not a case of us each doing the vast majority of an article each, rather that we join up contribs. P.S. Pat Audinwood lost his fight in case you'd not seen it :( Paralympiakos (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Run for AUSC

If the audit subcommittee actually does have the problems being narrated at WT:AUSC, then an independently-minded member is precisely what we need. It's a pity that you aren't an administrator, because, if you were a candidate, you would have my support. AGK 12:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, well this is an unexpected message. Thanks for the vote of confidence. I've got doubts I'll ever get support for becoming an admin, let alone more advanced positions. I have issues with and criticise ArbCom and AUSC, but to be honest I expect them to make me unpopular. It is nice to learn that there are people who pay some attention to the comments I make.  :) EdChem (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I ultimately don't set much store by WikiPopularity, which experience has taught me is usually granted to those who are less prone to speaking up when things are wrong but, resultantly, less useful as community members. But if you don't have it then I guess you won't go far, which upsets me. Maybe you'll perfect the art of speaking your mind whilst not making enemies (a very small number have), and I'll get my wish… Hint, hint :). AGK 23:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The art of speaking one's mind whilst not making enemies is indeed a difficult one to master; I suspect I have a lot to learn. I was upset when Carcharoth basically suggested I leave, and I fear my response will not persuade him that my comments have any value. Once the CC case is closed, I plan to comment on the positives and the areas for improvement that the case highlights. Perhaps that will be given some consideration. I tend to respect those who are willing to speak up when they see a problem, but I have to admit that my perspective appears to be a minority one; as you suggest, popularity tends to go with conformity. I don't have a problem with accepting constructive feedback, so by all means if you have advice to offer, feel free to stop by. Thanks for your recent comments.  :) EdChem (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

GA

Taking a break from researching our DYK, I decided this was a good idea. Just thought you'd want to know since you played a heavy role in its potential! Hope you're feeling better! Paralympiakos (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with the GA nom. I've been playing around with ribbons recently (see my user page and/or User:EdChem/Ribbons); it's nice and easy work. Feeling a little better - thanks - but stress levels remain high, unfortunately. EdChem (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

User:EdChem/Rafał Moks created... where do I get the missing nationality information? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If the nationalities are missing, I either use my own personal knowledge (if I know for certain what the nationality is), or I do a google search. The Polish sounding name is indeed a Polish guy as seen here. That website can sometimes be good for obscure people, as a means of obtaining their nationalities. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I established that one of the other missing nationalities was German, but the last missing one still eludes me. I've found indications of links to Bratislava (suggesting Slovak) and to Croatia, but nothing definitive. I'm feeling better now that I have made some contribution to two of the five pages we need.  :) EdChem (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, if you can't find it, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to just make an educated guess. Normally, I wouldn't advocate that, but it's not as though as people are interested in the nationality of some scrub who maybe fought once or so. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: DYK nom

Hi, I am working on expansion, but I what do you mean by inline citations? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll just give up. I just can't find any more information about it. I made a RB offer, but got no takers. Oh well. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? Thanks for helping me. How long will it take to show up? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for Opinion — Rhodocene

Originally posted at User talk:TonyTheTiger:   Hi Tony, working on the WP:FOUR ribbons prompted my thinking about my GA-status article (rhodocene), and whether it could make it to FA status. I figure you have a fair amount of experience with FA, and I was wondering if you would mind having a quick look and seeing what you think. Many Thanks, EdChem (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Rhodocene passes a quick smell test. I am not a practicing scientist, but the subject matter is in short supply at WP:FA and all concerned hope to see more articles like it at WP:FAC. Please consider nominating it and responding to feedback to get it promoted if possible.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply posted here and at User talk:TonyTheTiger:   Thanks, that was quick! I'll give it some further thought. EdChem (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ribbons

Hi! I see you've been working on creating ribbons for the posted reward too. Is there a particular reason you're not including the drop-shadow that's present in the File:Apprentice Ribbon.png that you're working from? VernoWhitney (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I didn't actually start working on ribbons for the reward, I just noticed the offer later on. I actually started as I wanted a ribbon image for my user page, and I removed the shadow because I thought the images were better without it - an aesthetic choice, in other words. I also took out the vertical lines / cut-and-paste artifacts from the image. If you want to upload alternative versions with a shadow, I'd have no issue with that. Or, is there some MoS or similar issue of which I should be aware? Regards, EdChem (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No issues. They just don't quite match up with the other award ribbons so I was mostly just curious if it was intentional. Since it is, everything's good. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to have been able to satisfy your curiosity. :) Cheers, EdChem (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick request

Hi Ed, I'm going away, without internet, until Monday night/Tuesday morning, so I won't be around to work on our DYK. Feel free to do whatever work on it you like, if you feel up to it and I'll take a look when I'm back if you've made any progress. I have just one small request; at present, I have a timed DYK (scheduled a few hours after our joint DYK), for Dragan Tesanovic. If you could keep an eye to see if there are any problems with it, then I'd really appreciate. Also, in the very unlikely event that I get a review on one of my GANs, could you just give some notice that I'm away? Would be greatly appreciated!

Hope you're doing ok anyway! P.S. look what I finally got {top right) !. Take it easy. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Paralympiakos, I'll try. I am away myself this weekend, overseas for a wedding. It turns out the internet access here is very expensive, so I probably won't be checking internet every day. I'm using a free wifi at the moment, but that is 30 min / 10 Mb maximum per day. Congrats on the GA, nice that you have one now too! :) I'm back late Monday night (my time). EdChem (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ed, nice to see you around again. I've noticed your edits this morning, such as this. I'm a little uneasy at these, as they don't seem particularly needed, given we've cited the sherdog database already. I'm just wondering if our efforts might not be better placed in the main text, given that currently, we've got very little done so far, with very little time remaining. What do you reckon? Paralympiakos (talk) 08:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Paralympiakos, it's nice to be back home. The referencing edits are mostly because I have concerns about the global sherdog reference - after all, the sherdog page indicated does not supply the information that I have now referenced. I think references like these are really necessary, especially at GA level, though I recognise that others could disagree. In any case, I agree there is a reasonable question of priorities... I have added the fight data for Artiom, and will do at least one more fighter tonight. With Artiom, I am missing country information for Vladimir Ermolaev and Martiros Grigoryan - any idea about these? Also, which of the fighters do I leave as redlinks? EdChem (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the work on Artiom. I've finished the main text for Gugen and Sultanakh. Moks is just about done and I'll get started on Grishin later. The nationalities for those two are Belarussian and Armenian respectively. As for redlinks, I usually alternate (inconsistently) between just black text and redlinks, so it's up to you. Sometimes I actually miss fighters to put them as links. Today, I discovered that Eun Soo Lee and Bruno Carvalho had pages, so I've linked them too.

Anyway, I believe that aside from a little pinching to clean it up, Gugen and Sultan are done. Paralympiakos (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Good work... on Ermolaev = Belarussian and Grigoryan = Armenian, do you have references? I'll do the career data for the two missing fighters tonight. For links, see my user page.  :) EdChem (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry on the indenting! Right, Grigoryan is Armenian, since we know that Damkovsky is Belarussian. As for Ermolaev, he's Belarussian. I wrote Russian accidentally because my train of thought was with Sultanakhmedov since I'd just finished that article. I'm going to make a start on Grishin though, so if you want to take a look at it later, that's cool. I did see the links too. That was helpful. We could write "done/cleanup" next to Moks, Sultan and Gugen if you wish, since I've finished their main text. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Our userspace articles -  Done

The last four hours of my life have been very slow. I've been writing about mediocre fighters, with 7-4 records! Regardless, I believe we're close to the end, as we just need to pose the DYK suggestion now. Been great working with you! Paralympiakos (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well done... if it's ok with you, I will move these into article space and post the DYK nomination this evening (my time). I'll look at copy-editing / expanding as I go. Obviously, when they are in main space, you'll still have a couple of days to change / correct anything I've done - the DYK reviewing will take at least that long, I'd guess. Cheers! EdChem (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I won't be doing anything with them for a few hours. It's 5am here. I'll take a look in the morning. Paralympiakos (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback +

Hello, EdChem. You have new messages at Paralympiakos's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

P.s. I'm rather amused and embarrassed that I forgot the lede/lead section for Garner! Good work on the Grishin improvements; it looks really good! Paralympiakos (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Cysteine-rich secretory protein

Hi, I had a minor question about your proposed hook at WT:Did you know#Question / Proposal re Prep 4. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. There wasn't a ref immediately after the "ophanin" fact, so I added it. I don't know if it was absolutely necessary, since the next ref applied to both ophanin and piscivorin, but I think it's better to have an explicit ref immediately after each hook fact. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem - I wondered about adding a ref there, just for completeness.  :) EdChem (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Our DYK

I'm going to leave the next course of action up to you. I'm worried our hook will be disqualified for no reason other than carelessness by reviewers. Additionally, Rafal Moks and Magomed Sultanakhmedov didn't fight tonight; their fight was moved at the last minute to the next event in about a month or so. Our hook needs to change accordingly, but I hope you can figure a way to incorporate them into the hook, as it would be a shame to waste our efforts. All the best. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I am thinking about the problem. The timing doesn't worry me but the lack of the third fight is a problem. As far as I can see, we have two options... change the hook to a four-article hook and go for a six article hook on M-1 XXII, or try to make a five-article hook now (plus a six article hook then). I think a case for an IAR-exception for holding Moks and Sultanakhmedov until the M-1 XXII event can be made, which I will post to WT:DYK when we have decided what to do. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The five (Heavyweights + Grishin and the Lightweights), then a six later sounds good, but I'm concerned that our Moks/Sultan articles will be disallowed. If we get the permission based on circumstance, then I'm cool to go with that, as there's four new articles we can create based on M-1 XXII. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

How does five work? Taisumov is disallowed as I created that months ago. Where do we get five from? Paralympiakos (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Bring the M-1 XXI article up to DYK standards as a x5 expansion by making it a textual article, rather than a list. EdChem (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: there is precedent for holding over articles in a request at WT:DYK at the moment. EdChem (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That'll be a heck of an effort and one that I cannot muster at 2:37 in the morning. By all means, use the source I've quoted in our articles to do a write up, as best you can, but I think we'll struggle with that. Your call. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and sleep. If you are happy for me to do so, I will post on our behalf requesting the next move. I will move the existing hook back to the main queues, and re-cast it as either a four- or five-article hook, and then a six-article hook for M-1 XXII. Is the date of XXII yet know? Thanks for the updating result work too, by the way. EdChem (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll be up for about 10 or so minutes more; just watching one final fight. This has been the weirdest day in MMA ever, so I need to see if the fight I'm watching throws up another anomaly. Anyway, XXII is scheduled for December 10th. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you willing for me to post on our behalf, or would you prefer I post for myself and say I will leave it for you to comment when you have the opportunity? EdChem (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I completely trust your judgement. Plus I have a habit of rubbing people the wrong way, completely by accident. Paralympiakos (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I've certainly rubbed people the wrong way at times too. I guess we have a 'date' for another few articles of collaboration to get the Hall of Fame hook. EdChem (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Timing is a wonderful thing. I've just turned my computer on a minute ago, just as you posted to WT:DYK. Good work on the message! That's rather well-put. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks... pity I got the date wrong! LOL EdChem (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Latisemin

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Cysteine-rich secretory protein

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

re:Venues of the 1956 Winter Olympics

I did all you requested. The only thing I did not do was the dissolution of the Organizing Committee because this is for the venues and not the Olympic Games themselves. I don't think it is needed to include the dissolution of this in the venues. For the main article yes, but not the venue article. Chris (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. EdChem (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Lorenza Mazzetti

Hi! Thanks for reporting this. Assuming that you were obliquely asking for some guidance for the somewhat obscure process of copyvio listing, I went ahead and did the rest of it. I replaced all of the content on the page with {{subst:copyvio|http://www.bfi.org.uk/features/freecinema/biographies.html}} and the resulting display on the article provides templates to use to notify the contributor (which I also did) and list it at WP:CP (which I didn't do because your listing is perfectly fine). Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was asking for help, but also for a second opinion - is this a copyvio issue, or just a plagiarism problem. I had CorenSearchBot look at it, and it passed it as fine, so if it is a copyvio Coren might also be interested to see the article and source to look into why the Bot wasn't triggered. (Of course, the Bot can't be expected to catch everything, but he may be interested in a false negative example.) Anyway, thanks for taking the further steps you have. EdChem (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless it's freely licensed (which it's not), it's a copyvio problem. Since the article didn't attribute the source, it's also a plagiarism issue, but that's less important than the copyvio. CorenSearchBot is basically limited by what Yahoo will return in its search results, so it is by no means foolproof. Sadly there are plenty of new articles which CorenSearchBot doesn't find which are speedily deleted or blanked as copyvio every day that there are plenty of false negative examples to choose from, but feel free to mention it to him. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I'm glad to hear that I made the correct call in making the report, I didn't want to be making an accusation that wasn't warranted. EdChem (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK logging

Hi Ed. Just wanted to drop you a note and mention that I think your proposal for logging DYKs sounds eminently sensible (certainly the most sensible proposal I've seen on that page.) I'd comment there, but figured it would get lost in the shuffle, and at any rate it might be best to revisit this once the discussion volume subsides a little bit. Seems like having a simple "archive" page for each month with columns like these would be a decent solution:

Article	Hook	Author	Nominated by	Approved by	Moved to prep by	Date/time of main page appearance

It would be analogous to the stats page we have now, and I suspect that could be mostly or entirely automated, and would serve to give folks credit for their reviewing and prep-moving work aside from making it easier to investigate when problems occur. 28bytes (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

28bytes, thanks for your note. It is nice to see that someone noticed that contribution, and if DYK survives (which at this moment I doubt), something like this should be implemented. Minor tweaks: I would title the first column as "Article(s)" to take account of multi-article hooks. Same with "Author(s)", for collaborations and multi-article cases. I would also record the admin who moved the set from prep to queue, because that admin is taking responsibility for the final checks. Thanks for dropping by, I'm slightly encouraged by the possibility that there could be positive developments to come from the present "discussions". EdChem (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Spontaneous note

I specifically do not read the recent WT:DYK threads, but accidentally clicked on your diff and came here with a spontaneous note - be sure that I and at least several other editors do value your article and DYK work very much. Now why this note - massive talk threads (cabal) are often nothing more than waste of time and spill of negative emotions; they happen periodically on DYK (Oh, I should think once why), with the same, nearly zero outcome. Please do not waste your temper on them - they reflect not the WP spirit, but tiredness of a few individuals. (Speaking for myself, I wrote some 20 articles during that DYK debate, which I am sure I would never be able to do if I got involved). Materialscientist (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by, and for your kind words on my contributions. Watching the contempt that is being displayed towards the DYK project, added to the regular mis-treatment of scientists on-wiki and the disdain for expertise, is really causing me a lot of pain. The goals of Wikipedia are so noble, I am beyond frustrated with them being impeded by a community whose collective behaviour is so changeable and arbitrary. I just do not know whether this place is worth my time or with my putting up with what goes on from time to time. EdChem (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ed (i) Scientists are highly respected on WP at all its levels (because it realizes the need for quality check, and professionals are irreplaceable in such matters). There is sometimes backlash from those who run away from anything they can't understand (e.g. science), but this is a minor. (ii) Appearances are often deceptive on WP - much of the community which show up at cabals are merely those who like shouting much more than working - those don't build WP. DYK specifically was bashed many, many times by those who wanted to change it to their liking, without slightest understanding how it works in practice and without any efforts from their side (we had really tough times when queues were scrambled right before featuring, as a norm, and nobody from those "critics" moved a finger to come down and help). This is all just one side. There is another, with dozens of good writers/reviewers, regularly producing quality content, the collaboration which you mentioned at WT:DYK has always been here and it keeps the project running, no matter those talks .. Materialscientist (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Materialscientist, I wish I believed that scientists are highly respected on WP, but my observations and experience do not bear that out. I wish I could see more of the other side, the collaborations and good writers and reviewers, and preferably standing up for the content of WP and the DYK project. EdChem (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ed, I've responded on my talk page, but I feel I should say something here too. I honestly don't know how scientists are treated here, as I've not been involved in that project, or overseen its development at DYK. However, my view on respect or therein lack of, is sod it. If people don't respect my work in MMA for whatever reason, then I'm not particularly bothered. It gives me self-satisfaction to have my work available on a global scale. Because of me, people are able to read basic profiles of some 100+ fighters. Take that same pride, Ed; haters or disrespectful people be damned. P.S. hoping that was taken as pride in my work, not arrogance! :S Paralympiakos (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Awardgive/Signator

Hey, is the Signator ribbon real. PLease tell me. Awardgive, ruler of every world in the sodaie way (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is real. Any new editor who has made his or her first edit is eligible to use it. See WP:SERVICE. EdChem (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Artiom Damkovsky

-- Cirt (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Kenny Garner

-- Cirt (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Maxim Grishin

-- Cirt (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Guram Gugenishvili

-- Cirt (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 2010 M-1 Challenge Season

-- Cirt (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Appreciation

		The Half Barnstar
		Well, we finally got there. After many weeks, our DYK has been approved. I wanted to wait until it was official to show my gratitude, so now is the time. EdChem, thank you for all your work and providing a friendly force on wikipedia. (This barnstar seems the most appropriate for teamwork, according to the list; it's not half-gratitude!) Paralympiakos (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Paralympiakos, thank you. I have awarded you the Right Half of the Barnstar to match, because I agree that the collaborative generation of new MMA content was a partnership requiring the active effort of both of us. I am also glad to have made a wiki-friend, and one in an area that I would not have expected or predicted. I am also pleased to see you have been contributing more to the admin side of the DYK project, well done! EdChem (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

de-adminship proposal

You wrote: "No de-adminship proposal will pass because the admin corps oppose the accountability that comes with it (if you don't believe me, read the last one)".

Can you give me a link to that?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure... WP:CDA and its talk page WT:CDA – I'll add links into my post at your talk page. There are also discussions in the WT:RfA archives that demonstrate that the opposition to the proposal was significantly stronger amongst admins, but it'll take me a little while to find those. PS: Welcome to my talk page, I wasn't expecting to see you here.  :) EdChem (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 201#"Fixing" RFA

From [1] and Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 203#Proposal to lower the passing percentage "Among the supports, approximately 19% (31/167) were from admins. Amongst opposes, 55% (106/190) were admins".

Those WT:RfA archives have discussion of problems with RfA standards and desysoping discussions on almost every page, if you've got a free week or so to waste reading the same comments over and over again. EdChem (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Fight Festival#CSD Tag

As the guy that pulled the tag, I agree with your reasoning 100%.

FYI, see the discussion at User talk:Paralympiakos#User:Mountaineer1976.
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, it's always nice to know my reasoning is seen as sound. I actually saw the discussion on Paralympiakos' talk, that was what prompted me to investigate. I was very surprised to see an A7 CSD tag on an article like that, I had to check the rules to make sure I wasn't totally off in recalling the criteria. I just hope it isn't making the wiki-experience for the newbie involved even more stressful... wikipedia can be a very unfriendly place at times. :( EdChem (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the guy would appreciate a brief note of support. Thanks for watching out for him. Content-creators (not admins) are king, at least in my eyes. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Done... good idea. EdChem (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Good evening. Thanks,thanks, thanks. I write to Paralympiakos about my english, my english is not good. Thanks for help. mountaineer1976

No problem, Mountaineer1976, I was glad to help. A small piece of advice: if you end your talk page posts with four tildes (i.e. ~~~~) the software will put a signature at the end of your post automatically, with links to your user and user talk pages, plus a time-stamp. EdChem (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Some possibly relevant information related to your !vote at RfA

I'm fully aware that when candidates disagree with opposers, it is usually to their detriment. However, with respect to the block on WMC, may I point you to posts at the enforcement page: [2], [3], [4],[5], [6], [7],[8],[9]

An appeal to Coren: [10]

and Davies: [11]

Frankly, my concern was that I was overdoing it.

Excerpt from example:

The words are quite clear. And we are wasting too much time on this. If we follow the process as outlined by the arbs - block immediately for actions clearly in scope, warn then block for actions an involved admin feels are undesirable, we exactly follow the arb ruling. WMC should be unblocked.

If your point related to actions at RfA, suggesting I should stand up at my RfA for those unable to speak, I wrote an email to Hypocrite, offering to post any diffs he would choose to provide. User_talk:Sphilbrick#Re_your_email.

Finally, of course you are right on your first point. I was spoon-fed the information to raise the WP:INVOLVED red flag, and I missed it. I don't think I would in real life, but the goal of the RfA is to imagine yourself in the situation, and I failed to do so.

I'm posting this to your page, not to persuade you to change your particular opinion, but because others will be reading your points, I wonder if you think any of my comments are worth making on the page itself. I'd appreciate your advice.--SPhilbrickT 14:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added a further comment at my !vote. Your comments on WMC are principled. I recalled the comments but not who made them, so thanks for reminding me. If you wish to respond / comment at your RfA or here, that's fine with me. EdChem (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)