User talk:EdChem/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about User:EdChem. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Retirement

She has now retired. She was our most prolific and productive Australian editor. This is a huge blow to the Australian Wikipedia community IMO. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, and this is a genuine last post (I went to read what had happened after waking up to a bunch of emails), your attacks on me continue to be uncalled-for. My approach here has always been about getting disputes resolved, even if there's heat in them, and I don't doubt DuncanHill and I could have relatively quickly come to some kind of amicable resolution without the abusive buzzsaw of BHG's behaviour constantly trying to dial the tone of that thread up to eleven.

BHG's behaviour in that thread was at such a level that, in my view, it just inherently says something about people who are willing to accept it and think it's fine - and I'm saying this as someone who has dealt with countless difficult or aggressive editors over the years. That was genuinely in a league of its own in all my years - I've honestly never seen its equivalent. To think that that is acceptable, and that repeatedly trying to dial back down the tone of the discussion and then eventually stating that the ongoing abuse was unacceptable (which it certainly would be in any other organisational context I've ever seen) was uncalled for is either a case of incredible double standards or attitudes of acceptable behaviour that are just so extraordinarily awry all you can do is back away slowly.

Bullying doesn't just prosper because of the people doing it themselves, it prospers because of people who are willing to accept it or tolerate it or step over the missing stair and throw the blame on people who notice it. And on that note, now I'm properly out the door. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Coming here after discovering an ArbCom case in which I am obviously involved, but which nobody thought to tell me about. TDW's behaviour and dishonesty about me at ANI precluded any possibility of us quickly coming to "some kind of amicable resolution". That she should make the comment above just proves to me her complete lack of good faith. DuncanHill (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Quick Note: I have read the three posts above, and will consider a fuller response in due course, but a few quick thoughts in the meantime:

Chris, I saw TDW's retirement notice and the post on her user page. It is always sad to see a long-term contributor leave, though I know from personal experience that it often turns out to be a break rather than a departure. Let's hope that's the case here... just as I hope that you will continue to contribute as and when you feel willing and able. I agree with others in saying that your "real" life is much more important than "Wikipedia life," especially now, and I hope you can handle your present challenges successfully.
TDW, I'm sad to see you retire as I think Wikipedia the project is worth the effort we all put in to it. I don't think you have handled the ANI situation appropriately or well, but I do applaud your desire to help Chris and support your desire to stand up to bullying. The fact that I believe you have made some poor choices and unjustified comments does not mean that I see you as a bad person – I just disagree with some of your decisions and hope that some time to reflect will allow you to see more clearly how you have portrayed yourself in this episode. Your goal of seeking a resolution to the issues is laudable, but I don't believe your actions were well aligned with pursuing that goal. You appear unable to recognise that, whatever the background with DH, his actions here were reasonable – asking that BRD be followed, asking that contested actions not continue (as others requested, along with notification that a decision affecting categories across the project belongs at CfD), and seeking admin involvement when Chris asked Duncan to desist from posting to Chris' user talk. Similarly, BHG provided a detailed explanation at ANI about why the changes went against consensus and were problematic. You agreed that the depopulation should be reversed, yet continued to post criticism of both DH and BHG and to defend CS, who has belatedly reflected sufficiently to recognise the content issue mandates his edits be reverted. Were your contributions really well-tailored to "getting disputes resolved"? I am disappointed that you perceive me as continuing to make uncalled-for attacks on you. I strive not to make personal attacks ever, and will certainly apologise to anyone who can show that I have done so. What I have done is comment on your contributions, which I see as unjustified and unhelpful, and tried to focus attention on ways to de-escalate the dispute. I have not and do not endorse everything that BHG or DH or anyone else has said. I have disagreed with her in the past and find her choice of words problematic at times. However, the core of this dispute was actions that needed to be addressed in article space and negative reflections on editors that were and are not justified by the evidence visible in the dispute. Clearly, whatever has happened in the past between you and DH and CS has added a lot of heat and emotion and hurt to this relatively simple content dispute, and I strongly urge you to have a careful look at the interactions and reflect on how much of what you and Chris and DH wrote was fueled by prior issues and how much was justified by what actually happened in this case.
Duncan, I did notice that CS is listed as the only party to the ArbCom request and wondered if you were aware of it as a consequence. I didn't take the step of checking your user talk page, however, and for that I apologise. I interpreted the way Chris started the case request as desiring it to focus on him alone, though, and so I did not see your exclusion as any slight against you. BHG was also not listed, and nor was TDW, so I do believe it was intended as a means for Chris to focus ArbCom's attention onto himself alone. I know that's not how ArbCom works and of course you would be a party if the case were accepted, but given the strong representations that it be declined, I didn't think that was a likely outcome. With regard to your post above, I feel bound to tell you that it is the most objectionable post that I have seen from you on this topic. Chris is clearly distressed about TDW's retirement, and she is angry about bullying (while also apparently unable to see her own actions clearly). They have come here to express regret about the departure of a long-term contributor and the problem of civility on WP more generally. I understand your annoyance about the lack of notification of the ArbCom case, I can understand your incredulity at her belief in "some kind of amicable resolution" being likely from the ANI thread had BHG not been involved, especially in light of what you call "TDW's behaviour." However, you have extended that into a claim that TDW has been dishonest and that her actions "just proves to [you] her complete lack of good faith." That is reflecting not on TDW's actions or recent edits, but rather on TDW as a person, casting aspersions and IMO inconsistent with WP:NPA. If I had any doubt that there is a history and bad blood between you, TDW, and CS, this post convinces me that there are feelings of mutual hostility that all three of you carry as baggage. Duncan, please refactor your comment about TDW. I have previously asked that TDW withdraw aspersions cast against you and I believe it is appropriate for you to do the same.
CS and TDW: If you cannot work together civilly and collegially with DH, then I suggest that you avoid him as much as possible, and that you reflect carefully before responding when / if you do encounter him. DH, I suggest the same for you with respect to CS and TDW.
All three of you: Better yet, can you actually find a way to resolve some of your past conflicts and move forward, leaving as much of the past as you can in the past?

EdChem (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

TDW repeatedly ignored the evidence of the diffs, accusing me of going nuclear etc, saying I should have discussed it with Chris when I had already tried to do that and been threatened with Arbcom! So you can call that "good faith" if you like. I can't. DuncanHill (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between saying her actions in handling of the ANI showed you a lack of good faith and a blanket declaration that she has a "complete lack of good faith." Your comments on her behaviour in the single situation of a heated ANI thread are reasonable / allowed by policy, even up to your view that some of what she posted was dishonest (so long as that can be substantiated by diffs that support that inference in eyes of reasonable uninvolved editors). However, making a blanket negative declaration about another editor or their nature as a person is not ok under policy, nor is it civil. You might form an opinion which you bear in mind in future encounters, but that doesn't make declaring "XXX completely lacks good faith" or "XXX is a dishonest person" acceptable. That it was being done to you (and I have already asked that she withdraw those aspersions against you) does not make it ok for you to do the same in return. Duncan, up to this point you have handled yourself well in this situation, IMO, despite there clearly being prior history. Please, continue on that path, and step back from comments on CS or TDW as people and confine your comments to their actions and the issues for encyclopaedic content. EdChem (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I really don't think there's anything to be gained from continuing to talk to you. DuncanHill (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @EdChem, having spent far too much time at ANI scrutinising TDW's comments about DuncanHill, I regret to say that I think DuncanHill's labelling of them as "dishonest" is justified. Amongst many other misrepresentations, TDW twice described DuncanHill's actions as "going nuclear", and did so despite having been previously shown how DH had followed the BRD path perfectly. TDW had many opportunities to withdraw their hostile commentary, but instead doubled down on it and claimed victimhood for being challenged. That is neither good faith conduct nor honest conduct ... and TDW's attempt to cast me as "abusive" and "bullying" for challenging TDW's smear campaign is classic gaslighting.

The substance of this is quite simple. CS has been massively and repeatedly out of line:

CS wrongly bypassed CFD
CS wrongly dismissed objections on his talk from three experienced editors
CS misused his talk page to host a prominent personal attacks against DH, including an unevidenced allegation of a "vendetta" (see specific ANI thread on this)
CS when the matter was raised at ANI, made false allegations of harassment against DH
CS made false claims of WikiProject WP:OWNership of content
CS claimed WikiProject support for actions, some of which were not explicitly endorsed by anyone in the relevant discussion
CS was backed by TDW, whose response to CS's disruption was to mount a sustained smear campaign against the editor who brought it to ANI
CS agreed that CFD should have been used only when the ANI discussion had over a dozen editors opposing Chris
CS has (AFAICS) reverted none of their hundreds (possibly thousands) of disruptive edits
CS and TDW continue to accept no responsibility for their decision to create a shitstorm over challenges to CS's disruption, and instead claim victimhood because their vicious muckslinging was challenged.
Even now, CS and TDW continue to pour out blame and bogus allegations against others, even fabricating new false allegations as they go (see e.g. para 2 of my reply at[1])

I have no knowledge of the previous contributions of ether TDW or CS, but their conduct in this matter has been appalling. In the case of CS, it continues to be appalling: ongoing smears, and continued efforts to blame everyone else for their own misconduct. Their failure to learn from this experience makes me think that it is very likely that there will be more trouble from Chris in the future.

However, there is clearly no community appetite for further action against CS or TDW at this stage. So while I appreciate EdChem's good intent in making heat long post here, I think that it unfortunately serves only to give yet more oxygen to the flames that CS and TDW have been spreading. Please can you just close this discussion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 May newsletter

The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
Lee Vilenski with 869 points, Hog Farm with 801, Kingsif with 719, SounderBruce with 710, Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and MX with 515.

The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello EdChem,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ben Boyd National Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matt Kean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed EdChem (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 July newsletter

The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
The Rambling Man , with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.

Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.

Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

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. 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Appreciation

If I may say something quickly here, to avoid adding too much to an already bloated thread: I really appreciate all the work you've done to keep us on track. Please forgive my going out of bounds in terms of venue; it's due to my unfamiliarity with how things should work at ANI, but I'm aware that this unfamiliarity doesn't excuse it and am trying to improve. Thanks to you I am learning, and I will try to do it faster; I really cannot thank you enough for it. I've struck the comments of mine there that I think you were referring to, and left a comment saying that I've done it. To avoid bloating the thread further, I'll make sure to avoid posting more things in it after that. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Double sharp, thanks for the kind words. Regarding the ANI thread, there's little point in adding to it unless there is something new to say on behavioural issues. What might be done at WT:ELEM can be discussed there. :) EdChem (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I understand. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

A metaphoric cup of tea?

Hi EdChem

Are you inclined to drop by at WP:ELEM sometime, for a metaphoric cup of tea, or your refreshment of choice?

I feel you would be most welcome.

best regards, Sandbh (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sandbh, I am contemplating dropping in though my time is somewhat limited and the ANI thread is, in some ways, discouraging. I certainly appreciate the offer of tea, though I am definitely in the coffee camp on that one! I'll try to remember that my stubborn unwillingness to compromise and drink tea is not a model for WP discussions. :) EdChem (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, it seems that this really will go somewhere well! Please, don't worry that your time is limited; I need some as well. In fact I'd like to request that I be given some time (maybe a couple of days?) to start a new thread there, to summarise what exactly I've been proposing wrt content and my reasons for it. I think it will be more useful than making you wade through the mass of previous discussions to get at that – particularly since earlier I was not doing what I now know is the proper thing of keeping content and contributor issues separate from each other, among other things. I apologise also for being in the tea camp. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

My perception of ELEM is that we try to keep the WP:ANI matters separate from the good stuff i.e. elements discussions.

Currently, we've been discussing how we chunk the parts of the periodic table into metal and nonmetal categories. Also, as flagged, Double sharp would like to discuss the composition of group 3. That's about it, I believe.

I tend to start my day with a cup of tea, followed by a mid-morning coffee. Best of both worlds. Double sharp once suggested referring to the noble gases as "cup of tea nonmetals", and I liked that idea so much I included it in a recent article published in Foundations of Chemistry, along with a credit. Sandbh (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Just confirming that Sandbh is correct about what I would like to discuss: I plan a new section detailing my proposal for how we colour things in and show group 3 on {{Periodic table}}, and what I would prefer as text for the article Periodic table itself regarding these matters, referring to what I feel are the relevant sources. Double sharp (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

On my time availability:

the end-of-high-school examinations in NSW (where I live) start in a week and so there is a lot going on for me at the moment.
one of those things is an ongoing respiratory problem (over two months at this moment, but not COVID... I have multiple tests to prove that!) and that has an unpredictable potential for impacting availabililty.

On tea:

My partner suggested honey and lemon tea yesterday. He wisely prefaced the suggestion that I would not like the idea. I am happy to say that my look in response did not cause him to spontaneously combust but did convey that he should seek another alternative. I wish all tea-drinkers great satisfaction in their ingestion of same; with the exception of an occasional green tea with a Chinese meal, I shall not be joining you.

Double sharp, on your comment about proposing text for the PT article:

you might want to reflect on the question I just posed at the discussion you pinged me to on YBG's user talk page. Is the discussion at the point that you spending time on suggested text is justified? That is, would that be helpful at this point or would it be better suited further on? I have not read the prior discussions, though I have skimmed some parts, and am wondering whether we might start (at WT:ELEM) with seeing if we (ie. everyone already involved) have consistent views on what is and is not agreed.
I don't mean to discourage you, I'm just thinking about what is the most productive use of your time. Please note, this is a genuine question, I don't know the answer, and I do like your emphasis on the "relevant sources" – but if what those are is not agreed then trying to distil article text from them may be premature. I am reminded of helping graduate students with sections of their theses / dissertations and seeing that much time was spent polishing text and making incremental improvements without taking a broader perspective and recognising that the underlying structure was wrong, and thus that much of the polishing was wasted effort.

Sandbh, on your recent article:

is it freely available? I would like to read it.

Cheers. EdChem (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
PS: Yes... milk and sugar – or, as an occasional treat, cream and sugar :) EdChem (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think you have a point about the suggested text thing. So I'll first talk about the sources – and while doing so just mention what I think the relevant sources are and what I think that implies we should say. But I'll stick to just PT illustrations for the latter; not much sense drafting proposed text when it's not agreed yet what we should say, indeed. Anyway, you may have to wait a couple more days for it, so please don't worry about your time availability; I'm also going to be somewhat busy. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Young soul trapped in an old brain

Thanks for the ping, but... are you sure I said something smart in that thread? This is the big WP:ELEM thread, right, with DePiep and R8R? I sort of remember reading parts of it, but DePiep doesn't like me and wouldn't value my input, so I was sure I decided not to say anything. Did I ... did I actually say something and forget already? Is it a different thread you're talking about? Please tell me there's an explanation that doesn't involve me commenting on something and completely forgetting I've done so a week later. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Floquenbeam... I have good news for you and bad news for me.

The good news: You did not say something a week ago that you have forgotten already. There is an explanation that doesn't involve you having commented on something and completely forgetting that you'd done so a week later.
The bad news: The explanation is embarrassing for me, involving mistaken identity and faulty recollection. :(
The explanation: The comments that I was referring to about RfCs in the recent mega ELEM-thread at ANI were made by Softlavender. They were good comments, though, so I hope you would agree with them. At the time, I was looking at the ELEM thread and the COVID thread about the WH cluster. If I recall correctly (and we've just proven my recollection is imperfect), you hatted a sub-thread on the WH topic as redundant, having been about an issue that was already addressed above. At around the same time, Softlavender hatted a sub-thread in the ELEM topic that was raising a point that had already been made by DePiep on several occasions. I commented to DePiep that making the same point over and over, when it has already been largely rejected / disregarded, was not helpful to the case he sought to present. I think the somewhat similar hattings led me to confuse you and Softlavender.
Apology: I apologise to both of you, Floquenbeam and Softlavender, for mis-attributing comments and not checking on my recollections, and for wasting your time and causing you to question your own recollections. Both of you were contributing helpfully to the respective ANI threads and I am in agreement with the advice offered by Softlavender, that I attributed to Floquenbeam, and to to which I referred in the thread at user talk:YBG. I hope neither of you is too upset by my mistake and I am embarrassed to have made it.

Kind Regards to you both, EdChem (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh goodness, certainly no apology needed for me. It's easy to get confused about other people. It would have been much harder to explain getting confused about myself. Anyway, thanks and cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Notification (ANI)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Trouble at WP:ELEM, round 3: conduct of User:Sandbh. Thank you. Double sharp (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

File:2-Methylcyclohexanone to 2,2- and 2,6-dimethylcyclohexanone.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2-Methylcyclohexanone to 2,2- and 2,6-dimethylcyclohexanone.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) 02:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I took a peek at your uploads with an eye towards redoing any others that needed it. I saw File:Dimethylacetylene cyclotrimerisation with titanium tetrachloride catalyst.jpg is relevant to Hexamethylbenzene#Preparation. However, I don't see a ref there that supports this level of mechanistic detail. Do you know what page of March's Advanced Organic Chemistry is the basis? Editorially (and in terms of time-priority), TiCl₃⁺ is only one of three different catalysts discussed there. Is it worth overhauling this image at all? DMacks (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it is one of two catalysts mentioned, isn't it? The image might also be usable at Titanium tetrachloride#Organometallic chemistry. I don't have a copy of March to hand right now, though, so I can't give you the page reference at the moment. I would like a suitable SVG image but it's up to you if you want to take the time to make it – the one I did is very crude and not mainspaceable, I am sure you agree. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Group 3 article written by Sandbh

Hi EdChem

I see you live down under. I’m next door, in the ACT. My article on group 3 is open access, here. Thank for your interest in reading it. Sandbh (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh... A couple of questions:

Is the R² for the Sc – Y – Lu – Lr series correct? By eye, it looks like a stronger correlation than the Sc – Y – La – Ac series, yet the given values are nearly identical.
Figure 7 has La appear twice... presumably the first point is meant to be Sc?

I don't have time to keep reading now, but I will come back to the article. :) EdChem (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

That's curious. I rechecked the R² values for the Lu-Lr series. They are correct. By my eye, Figs 4 and 5 support La-Ac; Figs 6 and 7 support Lu-Lr. What is the story that your eye is telling you?
Yes, that's right. The first point is meant to be Sc. Sandbh (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I mean Figure 6... it gives R²(Sc – Y – Lu – Lr series) = 0.727 and R²(Sc – Y – La – Ac series) = 0.712. The correlation appears much better for the Lu / Lr series so I wonder about the R² values or model leading to your values.
Figures 2 and 3 might be better if matching the styles of 4, 5, 6, and 7, with a trendline and R² for each of the two series.
On their face, 4 and 5 do appear to support La / Ac and 6 and 7 support Lu / Lr but any assessment by me of the paper independent of the literature is OR and not a basis for article-space content. EdChem (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I have now read the full article, Sandbh. It's interesting and some parts explore some thoughts I've had since getting involved at the WT:ELEM discussion. As you would expect, some of it is more persuasive than other parts and I what I take away from it is more about the purpose of the PT than about which "side" to take on La v Lu. Sadly, the parts I find most interesting need more unpacking and exploration in the literature before they would be DUE for inclusion. EdChem (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It's good to hear you found my article to be interesting. Yes, you're right about the take away. I don't quite understand what there is to be sad about. Subject to your RL obligations, could you elaborate? All the content, except perhaps argument 10, is in the literature. The actual question of the composition of Group has been under discussion for about 100 years. Sandbh (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Sad because the epistemological issues are interesting and relevant to the ongoing discussions but are not (to my knowledge) explored in the literature. EdChem (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 November newsletter

The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by Gog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.

The other finalists were Hog Farm (submissions), HaEr48 (submissions), Harrias (submissions) and Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
Bloom6132 (submissions) win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
Rhododendrites (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! 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, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration

Please comment here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case if you wish, as a witness. Jehochman ^Talk 02:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Planning to, very shortly. EdChem (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your statement. I believe it is a good summary and an accurate explanation of the related content questions. If appropriate and helpful, I would be glad to post this sentence over there. If so, should I put it in my statement or as a reply to yours? YBG (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Add your own section – threaded discussions are not allowed at the case request page. You might also add whether you think arbitration is desirable / necessary at this point or other approaches available or whatever is your perspective as a WP:ELEM member. Go for brevity, just like I struggle to. :) Thanks, YBG. EdChem (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Path forward

Thank you for your summary of the case. It was a bit too long, yet still helpful. Do you think it would help to create something like a style guide where Wikipedia arbitrarily chooses one common way to look at the periodic table and then uses that layout/classification scheme consistently from article to article (with some reasonable exceptions such as content that explains different ways to represent the periodic table)? Can we have this discussion once, come to a decision, and then not have to revisit it too often? Jehochman ^Talk 05:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Of the topics in dispute, the category / colouring one is the one I've considered the least. We have at least one editor who has allegedly stalled progress on it for years. We have another offering so many different categories as to make the ultimately-necessary RfC a guaranteed no consensus close. I'm more concerned about getting the editor interactions more reasonable so as to be able to build consensus, but unfortunately we have OR and SYNTH and DUE issues popping up all over. If you look at the first thread at WT:ELEM at the moment, you'll see a thread where I tried to point out that the project has bigger problems. If you have any chemistry background, go read the first section (under the lede) of periodic table and see if it tells you (as a reader) what you actually need. My post got lots of discussion and broad agreement that the section needed rewriting, yet little has happened except more walls on the existing disputes.

If we can't get together to write a basic outline of what the PT is for our readers, how can we get together on the relatively unimportant (to most readers) issues of where La and Lu are placed? At present, though, they don't see it. I read some PT related materials and think the whole article is so full of opinion, synth, or, due issues, that it isn't worth editing and a blank piece of paper would be a better start.

On colouring, and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, I have the impression that no one actually likes the colours presently used, but they can't agree on a set of alternatives and any change is opposed unless consistency throughout the encyclopaedia is guaranteed. I'm all for consistency, though with the "reasonable exceptions" that you mention, but I don't know that even those would get consensus. For example, I would be fine with an illustration at halogens that had all of group 17 coloured the same and everything else white, then later in the article had different colourings for metals / non-metals / semi-metals on an excerpt of the p-block, and not have the full colouring until the end... but I suspect that that would be opposed.

ArbCom can do several topic bans, which will take out the major editors and leave few if any active, or it can wag its finger, but it can't comment and act on oodles of small disputes like this, and it can't ensure mediation. If the editors can get it together to collaborate, then style guides and RfCs to choose an arbitrary colouring to use are possible and hopefully would mean not revisiting issues. If they can't, ArbCom will remove them or leave them in place but more hostile and the project will be dysfunctional. There can't be a good outcome in a project with so few editors if they can't find it within themselves to work together. EdChem (talk) 05:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

PS: Jehochman, since we are offering constructive feedback, I understand why you closed the ANI as you did, but you skipped over Levivich's comments on ASPERSIONS and then posted contradictory advice on a subsequent thread. Maybe you could look at what Levivich said about ASPERSIONS and then reflect on your own comment to Double sharp? I know I was irritated to be accused of ASPERSIONS and would have liked to Sandbh advised that his comments were not justified – you might form a different view, of course, but I am hoping that you did not mean to effectively tell him that he was right and Ds and me. Anyway... EdChem (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

No, I took no position on who was right or wrong, and certainly never thought you were wrong. I used to be pretty good at chemistry (won a statewide competition in high school 36 years ago) and did spend 7 years working for an electrochemistry plant that smelted ferrochromium and related alloys. I think it might be a good start to take one small dispute and resolve it. The only way to unravel a giant knot is one thread at a time. In addition, consider that there might be more editors joining the project if the atmosphere was less toxic. I am open to helping any way I can. Jehochman ^Talk 05:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Good point about attracting more editors with a better atmosphere, and thanks for the offer to help. I thought that the start of the PT article (which is solidly settled science) would be a good place to start, and I got some initial agreement, but then everyone was distracted. :(

As for not taking a side, I accept that you didn't mean to, but I think it is a fair reading that you did. Sandbh complained about ASPERSIONS in the long thread. Levivich posted this comment on the complaint. Sandbh has since been disregarding this comment citing involvement. When Sandbh made complaints again in a new ANI thread and you replied saying that the evidence was not fresh... but you also said to Double sharp that "do you now understand that if you say something negative about another editor you need to back it up with evidence (usually in the form of diffs or links) where the negative statement is made. We don't allow "casting aspersions" without having evidence attached. Please confirm you understand this, and then I think we are done for now." Double sharp responded by starting to re-post diffs from the prior thread, diffs that Levivich had already stated were not ASPERSIONS. Your intent may have been to remind Ds generally that claims need evidence, which is of course fair and reasonable general advice. However, your post exists in a context that includes the exact issue Sandbh was raising having been addressed in the ANI thread that you had recently closed. In that context, it is reasonable to draw from your post the inference that Ds had been casting aspersions (and, by implication, so had I), whether that implication was intended by you or not. The addition of the request to Ds to confirm his understanding adds to the impression that you were posting as an uninvolved admin to warn Ds not to cast further aspersions. I certainly read your comments taking a position that Ds was wrong and I wondered if you were intentionally contradicting Levivich's assessment or whether you had not read it and were looking at diffs in isolation from their context and surround discussion. I thought your post did reflect on me, albeit implicitly only. Most concerning, I thought your post was (or at least, would be taken) as validating Sandbh's position. I don't agree that Sandbh's characterisation of my posts as having violated ASPERSIONS were fair or accurate, and I don't think his call for BOOMERANG sanctions was reasonable either. As a consequence, I disagree with some of what you posted given the circumstances and I think you have (likely inadvertently) created inaccurate impressions for both Sandbh and Double sharp. I think it would be helpful for you to clarify whether your comments to Ds were meant as general advice or whether you see merit in Sandbh's claims (leaving aside their freshness). To be clear, I don't see this as some major issue for you, but until your post I thought my impressions of ASPERSIONS was supported and that Sandbh needed to adapt his understanding to how the policy is seen and applied... I'm hoping I wasn't wrong. EdChem (talk) 06:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

PS: I am aware that some of my posts make up for their lack of brevity with a tiny sprinkling of verbosity! :) EdChem (talk) 06:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Re a style guide, we effectively have one in the form of the colour categories shown at periodic table. @R8R: proposed a refresh of the colour scheme several years ago, which I recall liking. I intend to draft an rfc proposing the adoption of this scheme.

EdChem, re, "I read some PT related materials and think the whole article is so full of opinion, synth, or, due issues, that it isn't worth editing and a blank piece of paper would be a better start" which materials are you referring to?

Re, "We have another offering so many different categories as to make the ultimately-necessary RfC a guaranteed no consensus close", are you referring to my draft RFC? This is a "one voter many votes RFC." All the votes count, with the option receiving the most votes hopefully getting up.

Re the WP:ELEM editors collaborating, we do. R8R and DS recently got together to promote hassium to FA status. Our project has 32 featured articles, and 2 featured topics. Sandbh (talk) 08:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Re EdChem – when you say If we can't get together to write a basic outline of what the PT is for our readers, how can we get together on the relatively unimportant (to most readers) issues of where La and Lu are placed? At present, though, they don't see it., I feel I should note that I do (at least now) see it. Originally I commented and wanted to make things a little more precise, but now I see that the problem is that many of the precision issues lurking beneath are precisely the areas where the RS's are having a disagreement, and I agree with you that going into that is going to do a disservice to our readers. I agree with your proposed outline. Double sharp (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)