User talk:EdChem/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Neutrality enforcement: a proposal

Thanks for your comment about the Israel-Palestine neutrality idea. I've started a proposal, which could be extended to other intractable disputes if it works. See Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement. I'd very much appreciate your input. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Your comment about me on User talk:Newyorkbrad

[1] Should I be the last to know? I don't have a clue what you are talking about with any specificity, and I'm not seeing warnings over any current behavior. --Abd (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin Noticeboard thread in re: paracetamol

Thank you for your professional and polite posting on my discussion page.

I do have a question: is there any kind of possibility of "disciplinary" action against my account because of the issue that you raised? Do you believe that I, ah, committed a Wiki-foul?

I've been threatened with such action by people with no power to do so. You appear to be someone who does have the rank--if that's the proper word--to initiate action against my account?

I don't read your post as implying this, but I just want to clarify so I can defend myself if necessary (I hope this doesn't sound paranoid).

Down to your issue:

However, I think that that information can be broadcast without specifying the lethal overdose level.

I have to say I disagree with you position on this. I believe you objection lies in providing information to persons who might use it in an attempt to commit suicide or do a "cry-for-help" suicide "attempt."

The chief objection to your objection (not to be redundant) is that the information can easily be found a.) on other websites or b.) in the package insert that is available on request from every pharmacy. In other words: someone intent on harming themselves can easily obtain the necessary fatal dosage.

Although I'm not a lawyer, I don't believe that the Wiki Foundation has any liability for simply quoting already available information.

Does the WP:AN page provide information on how to enter an objection to this or is this page strictly for Admins on up? If non-ranked contributors can participate, exactly how do I find the discussion you've started on this issue?

Thanking you in advance for taking the time to read this and reply.

Regards,

PainMan (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi PainMan, thanks for your message. I'll answer your specific questions first.

I do have a question: is there any kind of possibility of "disciplinary" action against my account because of the issue that you raised? Do you believe that I, ah, committed a Wiki-foul?

No, I don't think there is any possibility of that. Firstly, even if there was something actionable, the time since the posting means it would be considered "stale". Secondly, there isn't an obvious policy that applies, so at worst that would ever have been plausible would have been some polite advice and an explanation of the problem (maybe with a mild warning). Thirdly, the people who commented on my AN posting didn't see the issue as serious in any case. I posted at AN to raise the policy question, I had absolutely no intention to seek for anyone to be sanctioned.

I've been threatened with such action by people with no power to do so. You appear to be someone who does have the rank--if that's the proper word--to initiate action against my account? I don't read your post as implying this, but I just want to clarify so I can defend myself if necessary (I hope this doesn't sound paranoid).

Wikipedia is meant to be egalitarian. Anyone can ask for some administrator action to be taken, and the issue will be considered on its merits. Specific incidents go to WP:ANI, general questions / issues for adminsitrator attention or input to the WP:AN. So, you and I have the same "rank", though Wikipedia doesn't really have such concepts. I'm not an administrator, so can't take any sort of disciplinary action (as you put it) even if I thought some was warranted - which, to reassure you, I don't. As for sounding paranoid, I think it is best to ask if you have a concern. I have no problem with answering your questions and setting your mind at ease.

Does the WP:AN page provide information on how to enter an objection to this or is this page strictly for Admins on up? If non-ranked contributors can participate, exactly how do I find the discussion you've started on this issue?

Anyone can participate, but the conversation didn't go for long and has now been archived. Here is a link to that discussion, so you can see what was said, but you shouldn't change it or add to it now the archiving has happened. The suggestion was made to start a discussion at the policy section of the Village Pump (WP:VPP) or at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Medicine). I have done neither because there didn't seem to be much enthusiasm for looking at the issue. However, either of us can start such a thread and see what people think.

OK, now, turning to the actual issue. To start with, some background. A good friend of mine recently took a deliberate overdose. It was a serious attempt and he ended up in hospital. When he got out, he was asking me about some of the new medications he was given. I came to WP to look them up, because I know that the pharmaceutical information is generally fairly good and he didn't need anything more technical anyway. I found the information (including yours) on overdose quantities in looking up the opiod dextropropoxyphene napsylate. Wikipedia is one of the first places to which people might come when seeking information. If he'd come looking for information, I would not have wanted him to find something amounting to "take X pills to kill yourself."

I realise that information like LD50 values are readily found either on-wiki or from google. However, I suspect that anyone knowing enough to deduce a dosage in number of tablets from such information is also likely to know how to find the information in other places. Some people will look as far as Wikipedia, and no further. Further, how is the lethal quantity of paracetamol - or of any other pharmaceutical - the sort of information that an encyclopedia should provide?

You might want to consider the essay WP:BEANS and the policy WP:NOTHOWTO. WP:V (Verifiability) is also relevant. Now, the applicability of these to talk space (where your comment was made) isn't as straight-forward. If the article on paracetamol stated the lethal dosage, I would have removed it under WP:NOTHOWTO, unless it was suitably sourced under WP:V. I know there is (sourced) information on the page discussing paracetamol toxicity. I believe that is inappropriate, but I recognise the argument in WP:NOTCENSORED that can be made. Maybe I could remove the lethal dose details from your talk page post under WP:BEANS, although doing so could be controversial as altering someone else's talk page post is generally not acceptable. As for the legal question, the applicable law is that of the State of Florida in the US, as that is where the servers are located - and that issue would be decided at the WMF level in any case.

The chief objection to your objection (not to be redundant) is that the information can easily be found a.) on other websites or b.) in the package insert that is available on request from every pharmacy.

My response to (a) is that it is basically an "Other Stuff Exists" argument. As for (b), I hope that most package inserts don't specify the lethal dose of the medication, because it really is irresponsible to tell someone how much they need to commit suicide. This applies especially to medications like anti-psychotics, etc. Of course pharmacists and doctors, etc, need such information but the general public don't.

Anyway, thanks for your response. EdChem (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ed:

thanks for your very complete and helpful explanation. Tho' I've been contributing (with one article under my belt) since 2005, I've never really immersed myself in Wiki-Policy. Usually only when it has affected me directly.

I very much thank you for the links so I can read them at my leisure.

I don't feel strongly enough to try to re-open the issue. So I have no issue with the discussion having been archived.

I do have background in this area. I was a pharmacy technician, trained at a vo-tech school.

And nearly every package insert I have ever seen contains information on lethal dosage(s), even if one has to dig thru column after column of techno-speak to find it. This is one of the reasons that, generally, packet inserts much be requested from the pharmacists. (The main reason was that patients would read the inserts, zero in on the adverse reactions that, by Federal law must be reported, even tho' they've affected only 1% or 3% of tested subjects, call the pharmacist or doctor up, freaking out, "I've got 'fill-in-the-blank." Causing lots of unnecessary worry to the patient and, frankly, wasting the time of physicians and pharmacists.)

Over-the-counter medicines, however, for obvious reasons, rarely contain anything like the amount information in the average prescription med insert. I agree with you to that limited extent: it would be right foolish to put such information on the back of a box of Tylenol or ibuprofen.

In my experience as a pharmacy tech, however, I can recall only a handful of patients asking for the inserts. So it the Net would be the likely source for most people.

Whether Wikipedia should carry such information is to me debatable. A case can be made either way. "Case-by-case" is probably the best way to handle it anyway.

Bottom-line: thank you again for all the helpful wiki-information.

Regards,

PainMan (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

More on SV proposal

I don't know if you follow the Wiki-En-l mailing list, but there's an extensive discussion there of this proposal, starting with Slim's post notifying folks of the discussion:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2009-May/100640.html

Woonpton (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom case

And Newyorkbrad didnt' respond to a post on his talk page, either.

Want to help me take this to the community? It would look better if someone other than me set out the basic facts. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, happy to help. I tried to start a chat with you (gmail) but you weren't around. EdChem (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Kirill_Lokshin#Per_list Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've posted some additional comments. EdChem (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Cold Fusion

NOTE: The message posted below was originally placed in a different section of this talk page, and I am exercising my discretion to separate it from that discussion. I have the feeling there will be further discussion of cold fusion and its article which does not belong with the original discussion where Abd posted. Anyone wanting to comment on this topic is free to do so in this section or a new section, but I ask that they not be added to existing discussions elsewhere on this page. EdChem (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out what problem you have with me, specifically, EdChem. My goal at Cold fusion is to have the article reflect balance as found in reliable sources, "reliable" being determined by WP:RS, quite straight, without warping of it by judgments of sources based on what they say, but rather based on judgment as to the reliability of the publisher. If you assume that Cold fusion is fringe science or worse, and then reject sources simply because they appear to support cold fusion, you have created a circular definition: cold fusion is fringe because there isn't much reliable source supporting it, if any, and there isn't reliable source supporting it because if it supports cold fusion, it must be fringe and unreliable.

The article was protected because Hipocrite was edit warring, and then, being the leading edit warrior (I did not edit war in this incident, at all), he went to RfPP and requested page protection because of edit warring -- accusing me, which was preposterous -- and then, having made the request, quickly edited to the lead to assert "pathological science" and "pariah field," which are very old opinions about cold fusion, effectively dead by 2004 and the second DoE review, and really dead now with a series of major publications in peer-reviewed journals, the expanded seminar hosted by the American Chemical Society meeting in March, and the publication last year by Oxford University Press and the American Chemical Society of the Low energy nuclear reactions sourcebook -- which is stunning, I recommend it.

Sure, lots of scientists still think that cold fusion was disproven in 1989, but that actually never happened. What happened was that the physicists were royally pissed that they couldn't replicate Fleischmann's work, and thought they had been snookered, but even Fleischmann couldn't replicate his own work at first when he ran out of the batch of palladium that showed the effect. It took almost ten years for researchers in the field to figure out how to do it with reasonable reliability; by the 2004 DoE review, half the reviewers thought that the evidence for excess heat was convincing, and one third that the origin was likely nuclear. I'm quite convinced that a review today, with what's been published recently, would come out substantially more in favor of a nuclear origin, and that review also might have been more positive if it had been deeper, with some back and forth as happens with, say, the IPCC reviews on global warming.

I'm guessing that you are not aware that in 1989, a large number of papers were published on cold fusion: two thirds of them were negative. But the next year, also a large number, and half of them were positive. Every year after that, positive peer-reviewed papers outnumbered negative ones, by a substantial margin, and even though substantial positive publication continues, such as the very significant finding of neutrons at low levels -- at last, clearly confirmed -- by Mosier-Boss in Naturwissenschaften in early 2009, negative papers are now as rare as hen's teeth. (It is now consensus that the main reactions behind the Fleischmann-Pons effect generate helium and don't produce neutrons, the helium measured is correlated with the measured excess heat at roughly the right value for conversion of deuterium to helium, Storms gives the Q value at 25 +/- 5 MeV/He-4, whereas the mass conversion value is 23.8 MeV. So where do the rare neutrons come from? Well, from secondary reactions: the He-4 is generated -- if Takahashi is correct, and this matches experimental findings -- as pairs of alpha particles, each with 23.8 MeV, and that's enough to cause a small amount of hot fusion, which then produces neutrons. Just not very many.

So there is a problem. We have lots of positive reliable sources, including secondary sources, that treat cold fusion as a reality, or at least as a set of verified and known phenomena with no reasonable explanation found except for some kind of nuclear reaction (not necessarily fusion, or not traditional d-d fusion, anyway). We have no recent sources on the negative side of matching quality. It's obvious to me that cold fusion isn't yet generally accepted, but that's becoming less obvious every day, with signs of the reverse appearing frequently: the CBS Sixty Minutes documentary, Robert Duncan's "conversion," the ACS Sourcebook, which includes what appears to be an advanced theoretical foundation predicting, from basic physics, quantum field theory, that lattice entrapment of deuterium molecules at the edge of the lattice, where it creates a trap that briefly confines two deuterium molecules, i.e., four deuterons, will fuse 100%, very quickly. That's Takahashi, and the recent edit warring was to keep reference to that merely as a "proposed explanation," which it obviously and verifiably is, out of the article in favor of old weak, passing-mention secondary and tertiary source, not peer-reviewed, from 1998-2002, that "all proposed theories are ad-hoc." And I wasn't taking that out, just trying to add the reliably-sourced stuff!

(And there is a new theoretical paper published last month in Naturwissenschaften, I found out about it because the author apparently gave a speech at a seminar sponsored by Robert Duncan at the University of Missouri, last week, and the abstract cited the paper. I didn't watch the seminar, but one Wikipedian who is a scientist did, and told me of being impressed by it. I don't think you realize, Ed, that while there is a concentration of anti-cold fusion editors at the article, there are many Wikipedians who have avoided the article for a long time because of the heavy and contentious atmosphere there, people get tired of the battles. It really has to stop.)

Storms (2007) states that no theory advanced to explain cold fusion explains all the known or reasonably claimed effects and is accepted. That's not controversial. Storms would ordinarily be considered reliable source, but certainly Storms is reliable as to what researchers in the field are claiming, but that was reverted out, repeatedly.

What's going on, Ed, is serious anti-fringe POV pushing that does not allow the use of reliable sources to determine balance. This is exactly what ArbComm has prohibited. So, I really wonder now, what side are you on? It seems you are a scientist, your open-minded skeptical participation at Cold fusion would be welcomed by me. Right now, there are quite a number of skeptical editors active, but only one seems to understand the issues, and that's a COI editor, Kirk Shanahan, who, in spite of his level of understanding, seems nailed to a position from having advocated it for over fifteen years. The other active skeptical editors (by which I now mean, not really skeptical, but dedicated believers that cold fusion is bogus) seem to be unable to understand the sources and the issues, which is certainly frustrating. Real skepticism is utterly appropriate with cold fusion, it really is extraordinary, though if Takahashi is right, it doesn't actually involve new physics. (The four-deuteron single-confinement fusion produces Be-8, which quickly decays into two alpha particles carrying the generated energy; thus momentum is conserved without having to wave some exaggerated Mossbauer effect to claim some mysterious transfer of the energy to the whole lattice. This also explains a lot of other aspects observed: no neutrons, the reaction takes place at the surface (deuterium gas doesn't exist within the lattice, the molecules dissociated upon entry), there are many reports of elemental transformations that involve changes in atomic number by more than one, I think it's typically four, and, by the way, the findings of copious alpha radiation are beyond doubt at this point, the various alternate explanations have been ruled out definitively. It wasn't found earlier because alpha radiation is non-penetrating, it doesn't make it outside the cell unless a very thin window is provided and the electrode is right next to that window -- which has been done, in which case they do find reduced levels of alpha radiation outside the cell. How they found the copious radiation was by putting CR-39 radiation detectors inside the cell, in some cases they wrap the electrode around the detector.

It never did require new physics, in fact. Fleischmann was looking for cases where the Asymptotic freedom of low-density plasma that allows basic quantum mechanics to be used to predict nuclear behavior would fail to predict experimental results, where the more sophisticated Quantum electrodynamics would be necessary. He thought he would fail, that there would be, indeed, a difference, but it would be below detectable levels. He was wrong. Lucky. If it had been a different batch of palladium, he'd have missed it. And if he hadn't mistakenly found neutrons, hadn't reported that experimental artifact, he might even have been accepted, because it would have been crystal clear from the beginning that if this was fusion, it wasn't straight d-d fusion with the same behavior as hot fusion.

There really is much, much more going on in the field than most realize. I was skeptical five or six months ago, i.e., with everyone else, I thought that cold fusion had been shown to be bogus in 1989. But because of the admin action while involved that I discovered in January, I became interested in the article and read on it. And read more. And more. I had sufficient science background (Caltech, Feynman, Linus Pauling) to have a basic understanding of the work, though certainly not a detailed foundation. The work is there, Ed, it's solid work, and, for our purposes, much of it is published in peer-reviewed reliable source. But if you dismiss everything to do with cold fusion as necessarily unreliable, ipso facto, you will miss it, you will rationalize away everything.

Sorry about the length, Ed, but I imagine you can take it, and that you might be deeper than those editors who expect everything to be dealt with by one-liners and short snappy comments. On the other hand, you can certainly tell me to take a hike. I respect requests not to post to talk pages, or other limits. --Abd (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Abd, there is a lot here... I'll give some thought to a response. First thought, though, is that my basic point was that peer-reviewed conference papers are generally reliable, though obvious inferior to journal articles as sources. My CV includes numerous such publications, and I would vigorously defend their academic rigour. However, general cases have exceptions... and exceptional cases even have exceptions. Think of it this way: if editor A wants to add ref X to an article, the burden of proof is on A to show X is reliable. If A shows X is a peer-reviewed academic publication then a reasonable case is made for reliability. If editor B wishes to then challenge that X is not reliable, the burden of proof is now on B to show why A's evidence is inadequate. Possible evidence B might present could be evidence of prior misconduct by the authors of X, a poor reputation for reliability of the journal in which X appeared, the lack of qualification / experience / competence of the editors to make any judgement on X, and those are just a few examples that come readily to mind. If B is able to make such a case, the burden reverts back to A to demonstrate that whatever problem B has demonstrated does not actually undermine the reliability. To illustrate how such a discussion might go:

A: I want to add statement Y to the article.

B: You can't say that without evidence - content must be verifiable

A: Reference X supports statement Y.

B: But reference X isn't reliable

A: Yes it is, it was published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, which is a highly respected journal with rigorous peer review.

B: OK, yes, you are correct about where it was published - but author M was expelled from her / his PhD program for falsifying data, and the academic advisor had to withdraw several JACS papers, so how can we know this isn't made falsified junk?

A: Oh, I didn't know that. I just did some quick checking, though, and this paper is primarily work from another of the students in that group. M was only a minor author who only made a small contribution, and I'm told the work has since been repeated. That's why no clarification was issued to do with this work, and why it's still a reliable JACS paper even despite M's involvement.

or... Oh, I didn't know that, but statement Y has been confirmed in references M, P, and Q - maybe we use one of those references.

B: OK, we do have a reliable and verifiable basis for including statement Y.

See how the burden of proof shifts back and forth? It appears to me that one problem with the discussion at cold fusion is that you don't recognise why the burden of proof presently lies with you. A charicature of the argument has been something like:

A: I want to add statement Y to the article.

B: You can't say that without evidence - content must be verifiable

A: Reference X supports statement Y.

B: But reference X isn't reliable

A: Yes it is, it was published with peer review, as noted by evidence Z.

B: OK, yes, but conference publications peer reviews tend to only draw on the pool of conference participants (particularly speakers) for refereeing. In an area of controversy, with both the speakers and editors strongly on the pro- side, and with no significant involvement of the anti-side, the reviewing will not reflect the broader perspectives of the scientific community. With no balance in the editorial panel there is potential for bias in choosing referees... with the speakers also in near-unanimous agreement on the controversy the bias becomes almost inevitable. There is serious reason to doubt the independence and rigour of the reviewing once a community becomes insular and outside the mainstream - and that is what has happened here. Consequently, the presumption of reliability from the fact of peer reviewing is not justified in this case.

A: But, it was published by the American Chemical Society

B: The publisher doesn't matter if the reviewing was not to the standards expected in the mainstream scientific community

A: But, it was peer reviewed

B: The reviewing was dodgy / questionable / unreliable, as I explained above

A: But, it was peer reviewed

B: The reviewing was dodgy / questionable / unreliable, as I explained above

A: But, it was peer reviewed

B: The reviewing was dodgy / questionable / unreliable, as I explained above

A: But, it was peer reviewed

See the situation? If you can't explain why the peer reviewing should be taken as reliable in this specific case despite the general problem with this type of conference proceeding then you can't justify (to me, at least) using the reference. EdChem (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Ed. My claim is that we don't do this kind of debate over details of source reliability unless there is conflict of sources. Essentially, if there is a peer-reviewed journal that is generally accepted as reliable, every reviewed publication there should be considered peer-reviewed RS, which doesn't mean "reliable." It really means notable. Your position reduces us to arguing about every source, with the argument depending on assumptions about what is mainstream and a whole host of subjectivities. I'm not claiming that the review process for the ACS LENR Sourcebook matched the quality of, say, the process for publication in Naturwissenschaften. What I'm claiming is that the publisher is academic, that it is peer-reviewed because the ACS says it is, and they are a reliable, reputable publisher, as is Oxford University Press. At the first level, the argument you raised above about the author being expelled are irrelevant. It is not the author that determines source reliability for Wikipedia purposes, it is the publisher. The publisher can hire some hack off the street, if they are so foolish. It's their money and their reputation at stake! --Abd (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

INTERJECTION: I have added Abd's signature to the above paragraph (which he wrote) so that authorship is clear as I want to respond separately to just this paragraph.

My position does not reduce as to arguing about every source, as in very many cases "it's peer reviewed and I know this because ..." would end the argument. A problem only arises when there is some issue with the reviewing - and conference publications which exclude the mainstream view are one example of a serious issue with the reviewing. The identity of the publisher is irrelevant unless they add something to the issue surrounding the reviewing. Describing the author scenario I proposed as irrelevant to the discussion is concerning. The scenario I described happened a few years ago... a graduate student was falsifying data, which ended up in JACS papers (a very prestigious, high impact journal). When the fraud was discovered, the papers in question, the ones based on her fraudulent data, were withdrawn (ie. declared unreliable) but every other paper on which she appeared as a minor author came into question. Nothing appeared in print about it, but word went out that everything she had contributed to every other paper was re-verified by the group concerned. In other words, the scenario I described happened, but as "is statement Y reliable" rather than as "is statement Y reliable for WP". By your argument of publisher alone, there is no basis for questioning a statement even when its author is a proven fraud if the statement appeared in a serious journal and has not been withdrawn. That is not the way things happen in the real world - once fraud is proven, *everything* from that person becomes questionable until verified independently. Now, before you say it, yes I am taking a deliberate fraud as an example and that is not the case with cold fusion, but I have done so to illustrate the crucial point. Publisher alone is not the final word on reliability. Find a source in JACS and I'll agree with you that it should be taken as reliable unless there is some very powerful reason to the contrary... but that caveat must always be there. In the cold fusion case, I doubt anyone is saying that the ACS' declaration of peer review is a lie. What Kirk is saying is that that review is unreliable when all the referees are drawn from a conference presenter group which does not have representation from the mainstream sceptical persepctive. The presumption of reliability does follow from peer reviewing, and mostly that is the final word - but there is always the caveat that the presumption can be rebutted with sufficient evidence. In a case where the reviewing is in question - and it is - it is not enough to say "but ACS says it is peer reviewed", it is instead necessary to address the points made in questioning the review. EdChem (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As to the Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, It's peer-reviewed because it is published by the American Chemical Society in association with Oxford University Press, and the Foreword by the "ACS Books Department" says that "drafts of chapters are peer-reviewed prior to final acceptance or rejection." You have confused "questioning a statement" with questioning the reliability of a source. The paper you mentioned was sourced to the JACS. That's reliable source, on the face. "Reliable source" doesn't mean "unimpeachable." However, when content is reliably sourced like this, usually we don't exclude it, particularly when the reliable source is a secondary source, a review, and not merely original research. Rather, we report it and balance it, if we have sources of equivalent quality or better. What's "better" than a peer-reviewed secondary source? Well, I'd assume peer-reviewed secondary source in a journal of higher quality, according to one of the measures, or, even more, a multiplicity of such publications.

Kirk is claiming that the review is unreliable, but he's using the word in a very different way, and one very much coming from his POV. Were all the referees drawn from a "conference presenter group"? Frankly, that would indeed deprecate the publisher for allowing this (if it was a biased group, it might be or might not be, it would depend on the publication and the topic). But all this is really moot. We don't have conflict of sources, unless you go back, and even then, categorical rejection of cold fusion wasn't found in peer-reviewed secondary source, it existed on a POV level; for example, the editor of Nature called cold fusion "dead," and refused to allow submitted papers to go to peer review. We have source on that, but wasn't peer-review published, it was editorial comment. It's about the history of the topic, not the science.

I don't see WP:RS as being a complicated standard; it was designed to allow Wikipedia to be edited by non-specialist editors, following a relatively simple guideline that relies upon the fact that publishers have their investements and their reputations on the line when they publish something. That's why we want independent publishers to consider something RS, not a vanity press or a specialist publisher devoted to fringe topics. There are books in the field that are published by publishers that can be seen as either self-published or, we could argue that Mizuno was published by a fringe publisher, except that the fringe publisher (Infinite Energy Press, publishers of Infinite Energy magazine, only published the English edition, the Japanese was (I think) not a fringe publisher. (Mizuno is an academic.) But Storms wasn't, and the Sourcebook wasn't.

If I were asserting that these publications establish that we should treat cold fusion as real, it would be one thing. But I'm not. Thus the possibility that the publications might be biased, perhaps because of author or editor bias, is actually moot. They are notable. This means that we should cover it, and we should balance it with report from other reliable sources. And, Ed, the problem is that there isn't any from recent years. That might change, indeed. There is now so much media source favoring cold fusion that we might start to see some backlash, but it's going to be awfully difficult to impeach this work in peer-reviewed journals. And, of course, there is plenty of work in independent peer-reviewed journals, such as Naturwissenschaften and others.

The arguments you make about reliability are ones which arise when there is conflict of sources, or isolated extraordinary claims. You are quite correct that if there is a single reliable source with some extraordinary report, we don't necessarily dive immediately into reporting it. However, when there are a multiplicity of such sources, and there arises a secondary source review, we can't ignore it any more, not except at the peril of our neutrality. And here we have many reviews (I have, in my mind, right now, five reviews, there are more.) and none from the other side that are any later than 2002 (That would be Park, Voodoo Science, which isn't academic.) I really welcome the possibility that you would come to Cold fusion and help address the problems there. Right now, we have one pro-cold fusion editor who doesn't get it, who is arguing "reality," an SPA, and there is, on the other side, a set of editors, often connected with other anti-fringe efforts, who are clueless about the science but are damn sure that I'm blowing smoke. Please come! --Abd (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

But set aside the ACS Sourcebook. Set aside Storms, published by World Scientific. The balance of publication in peer-reviewed journals, over recent years, has been entirely positive on cold fusion. I know of one paper that's been classified as negative that actually wasn't. Kowalski supposedly wrote a paper questioning the radiation origin of the CR-39 tracks found by the SPAWAR group. But if you look at the context of this "negative" report, he did a replication of the SPAWAR codeposition work, and found excess heat. He was only questioning a piece of the evidence for nuclear origin. For all I know, he was following some theory of cold fusion that doesn't expect alpha particles. (His criticism was quite forcefully addressed in a followup by the SPAWAR people, and I don't think he, himself, continued to maintain the criticism). Ed, there is plenty of publication in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals, so the basic idea you have seems to be incorrect if rigidly applied.

What is new about Storms (2007) and the ACS sourcebook (2008) is that these are reviews of the field, there has been only a little review publication. I was surprised to find a 2007 review in Frontiers of Physics in China by He Jing-tang, but it was pretty superficial and only lightly referenced. But it's peer-reviewed, with a respectable review panel, and we can use it, in my opinion.

With caution. Bottom line, though, RS is RS, for purposes of notability. If it's been published by a reputable publisher, it has been "noticed." It shouldn't be excluded from the project. Exactly how it is presented is another story. Remember, I don't think that RS means that information from it is "reliable." It means, though, that we treat it with respect, in the sense that we don't toss it in the trash just because we don't like the ideas expressed or think them "fringe."

Where there is no contradiction of sources, we don't need to get into relative reliability, impeachment of authors, and all that. One of the problem is that editors will read a source and decide that information there contradicts what they think they know from other sources. However, what is in most peer-reviewed reliable source has been carefully edited, normally, in the hard sciences anyway, such that sources do not actually conflict. If group A ran a P-F experiment and found excess heat, and group B ran what seemed to be the same experiment and found no heat, there is no contradiction. There are two different experiences, and both are assumed to be valid. Legal principle: testimony is presumed to be true unless controverted.

Where we run into trouble is with conclusions. Group A may conclude that they saw cold fusion. Group B may conclude that cold fusion is bogus. Both conclusions are easily subject to error. There are lots of explanations possible. A's calorimeter was defective, or they used it improperly, they didn't stir the electrolyte, they were fooled by Shanahan's calibration constant shift (caused by what he says is a real P-F effect of a chemical nature; the effect causes calorimetry error and thus an overestimate of generated heat). B thought they replicated the experiment, but actually some unidentified condition was different. Such as exact structure of the palladium caused by differences in fabrication history or impurities. Or the effect is subect to some random variable, not identified. For example, triggering the P-F effect might require some muons from cosmic rays to show up.

But we assume that all experimental reports are true testimony. That isn't the same thing as agreeing with the conclusion.

What I'm claiming, Ed, is that WP:RS is, properly, fairly easy to apply (in most cases, and certainly with respect to publications of the American Chemical Society or World Scientific. You are claiming, it seems, that it can become impossibly complex, and "impossibly complex" is a formula for never finding consensus. I really think that we should examine the foundations of RS, why we have the guideline the way that it is, and how it is the foundation of our content policies.

There is still plenty of room for judgment; the tricky question, when there is controversy, is how to balance sources, and the standard is actually consensus. I assert that NPOV is measurable, objectively, that it is not an absolute, it isn't a quality of text itself, it is a relationship between people and text, that we approach to the degree that sincere editors, with all points of view, agree with the text. When we have crafted text like that -- it is sometimes a lot of work, takes a lot of discussion! -- we can be as confident as possible that it is neutral. For practical reasons, we may never actually reach 100% consensus, but it should always be the goal, desirable.

There is a lot of process theory behind this, Ed. I'm not just making it up, ad hoc. This is what I've been working on for over thirty years. --Abd (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Abd, I am going to reply briefly on two separate fronts. I have signed each separately, so you can respond to them separately if you wish.

ON CONTENT: Some of what you have written is about source reliability and the application of WP:RS. When it comes to peer reviewing, the determination of reliability is generally straight-forward. As a general rule, journals are better than conference proceedings, more prominent journals are preferable, and reviews far more useful than single studies. However - and this is where we differ - there will be occasional exceptions where the presumption of reliability of these sources is unjustified. This caveat rarely applies, and hence most decisions are straight-forward, but the caveat does and must exist for the unusual cases. Fraud is one such case; claims about fringe areas, extrordinary claims, are others, and the list is not exhaustive. You are discussing a case where the question of the caveat applying has been raised. Some editors think it clearly does apply, you appear to think that it does not (under the assumption of your recognising its existence). The only path to consensus on your view I can see is for you to explain why the caveat does not apply, or does not exist. EdChem (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

ON STYLE: You would be well aware that your communication style is unpopular in some quarters. I am willing for you to post here, but would appreciate your cooperation in retaining readability of the page. Consequently, I ask that you restrict yourself to one issue in a post. I have engaged about on the sourcing issue alone, and primarily on the principles involved as I see that as the threshhold issue before dealing with specific cases. I believe one of the reasons your posts become expansive is an attempt to cover all the issues you see as important. Please remember that WP has no time limit. The discussion at the CF talk page is almost incomprehensible because so much is being debated at once. I want to prevent the same happening here, and remembering that anyone is welcome to contribute to this discussion, I want to maintain control. I make the same request - one issue per post - of anyone else posting in these CF discussions. I will allow more than one thread if it is necessary to address different issues to deal with a single topic, but I want to try for sequential discussions of topics, not simultaneous. Does this seem reasonable? Comment / alternative suggestions are welcome. EdChem (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

NOTE... Abd removed this post and replaced it with the one below. EdChem (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Forget it. Per this, I apologize for wasting your time and regret that I wasted my own, with this discussion. --Abd (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Abd, it is your choice. I don't consider a discussion a waste of time simply because the other person disagrees with me in some areas. I favour the topic ban because I believe you had ownership issues with CF talk and I doubt that any other sanction would focus your mind sufficiently to actually change the editing behaviours which are problematic. That is not the same thing as saying you have nothing of value to contribute on the subject. What you do next is entirely up to you, but I hope you choose actions that favour the development of high quality encyclopedia content. Best, EdChem (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion mediation

I have been asked to mediate the content dispute regarding Cold fusion. I have set up a separate page for this mediation here. You have been identified as one of the involved parties. Please read through the material I have presented there. Thank you. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cryptic, thanks for the request. Mediation is certainly a positive idea. Before responding formally on the page you established, I would like to ask a question. On that page, you wrote "Third, it will serve to verify that the involved parties have read through the introductory material, agree to participate in the process that I have set forth, and ultimately agree to respect my final decision as a neutral mediator". As I understand the term, a mediator is usually trying to facilitate parties reaching a mutually agreed position, whilst a binding final decision would be made by an arbitrator. Consequently, I am unclear from the last clause of the quoted sentence whether you are proposing to act as mediator or arbitrator. I believe it is important for me to understand what process I would be agreeing to before commiting to participate, and so I would appreciate some clarification. Regard, EdChem (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have considered the matter further, and I believe I will reword the clause that you highlighted. It currently implies that I intend to take a dictatorial stance on whatever conclusions are drawn from the mediation. This is not my intention. Hopefully, with each step of the dispute resolution, we will, by means of intelligent discussion and debate, reach compromises which all (or most) of the involved parties can agree with. In that regard, the "final decisions" will depend almost entirely upon the merits of the points being made by the involved parties, wherein I will serve as a mediator. I hope this answers your question. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

review of an article

Hello. I have some disgreements with Abd about the content of Oppenheimer–Phillips process. Do you know enough about physics to review it and fix any inaccuracies in it? --Enric Naval (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggested a review by a nuclear physicist, actually, but certainly there is no harm if you take a look at the article. I expect your judgment would be better than that of Enric, except that if Enric doesn't undertand the article, we could take that as a sign that someone without knowledge of the field is having difficult, which is useful information. I'm not at all convinced that Enric has pointed out any "inaccuracies," but there certainly may be some, and if I had time today, I'd refine a few more points, in particular the claim that free neutrons readily fuse, which is only true for thermal neutrons and some nuclei, complicated issue.

I didn't see this in any sources, but the O-P process should actually facilitate neutron capture; energetic neutrons would just bounce, usually. The proton slows the neutron down when it's repelled, making capture possible. The actual capture process is quite complex to understand in detail, it's pointed out in the source that QM calculations are basically impossible due to the many bodies involved. I'm nowhere near qualified to write authoritatively on this topic, but I do have the background to understand the sources. --Abd (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, ScienceApologist, fresh off his block, apparently got private permission from an arbitrator to edit the article, and has started working extensively on it. While he's, er, "difficult," I'm quite sure that we will, together, greatly improve it. I can handle the difficulty, and the project will benefit regardless. If you care to watch and contribute, it could be helpful. Basically, I'm claiming that even if I "misunderstand" the process, as SA is claiming, that's a sign that even less-informed readers will likewise misunderstand it, and thus our explanation should be improved. Technical writing has been a long-term interest of mine. I use my own ignorance as a device to improve technical writing, and I will sometimes appear to be "stubborn," because I will insist that the text itself remove my ignorance and not other explanations or my own inferences. --Abd (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed

Per your request, I removed my response. I also removed your response to me, since it is now moot. Notifying you since it is not typically OK to remove others' comments but in this case it seemed appropriate. ATren (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your action and your notification. EdChem (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy EdChem's Day!

User:EdChem has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as EdChem's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear EdChem! Peace, Rlevse 00:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

SB

No point in trying to reason with him. He certainly couldn't be bothered to read the evidence during the case, so he's not going to change his mind now. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Only Finn?

Didn't I reply to your question here as well? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus, sorry, but I'd have to say no. You did mention the importance of a Purpose of Wikipedia principle, but didn't (as far as I can see) address the question I raised about the logic of the decision - ie that a Consensus principle is a logical consequence of the Purpose of Wikipedia. Further, your comments went on to try and offer yet another defence of the mailing list by asserting no harm was done to content. I understand that you are a party to the case and will argue for your 'side', but by doing so you merely invited other parties in and the point I was making - a point Finn recognised - was quickly lost. I found that disappointing, but (having watched ArbCom at various times) not especially surprising. EdChem (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

mis-representing other editor's views

Hi, it's a shame you misrepresented another editors views, when that editor is not allowed to post about that issue for a year. Maybe you'd like to leave the bit about contentious, and strike your mis-interpretation of that editors views? I suggest this as politely as I can in an effort to keep editors calm. Please notice I haven't started another discussion about Speed of Light (measured) and Speed of light (definition). NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Go read the thread on WMC's talk page. Then come back and try to persuade me that Brews was not arguing for two distinct speeds of light. Assuming you are unsuccessful, perhaps you'll consider an apology to me for not assuming good faith. I recognise that Brews does not support / agree with David in all areas, but they clearly are in agreement about the 1983 definition of the metre having some profound effect on the status of the speed of light which is neither supported by the scientific community nor justified in my opinion. And No, I will not go in and change a thread that has been closed by an Arbitrator - but if it were open, I would make some comment in response to Brews. EdChem (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Our disagreement..

I'm bringing this to your talk page rather then continue the discussion because we had drifted away from the original topic to our personal disagreement.

I am not for "preserving the power structure" as is.. I just have experience trying to mediate in areas where any "Community" process would be used as a political tool during disputes. For example, Nationalist disputes (Troubles and EEML, for example), or heated topics like the Fringe Science area, etcetera. Areas that already are "Chew the admins up, spit them out" bad would only get worse. Administrators would not be able to do their job properly in those areas. Find me a way that it's not going to be gamed and that it wouldn't be yet another flamefest for partisans on both sides to argue about. I don't believe it's possible.

And as for your claims of the community... The "community" you claim DOESN'T EXIST. Instead you get a very small subset of the community (maybe 1/1000 editors give a damn about these AN/ANI/Etcetera drama fests.), and you'd very quickly run into the same people arguing the same way.

I've also seen RfC/RfArb be successful in forcing an administrator who did not use his tools properly Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/R._fiend.. so in my view, the system does work. Truly bad administrators will be caught, and will be de-adminned, just not so instantly as you seem to prefer.

And I would argue that yes, a refusal by ArbCom can reasonably prevent the "community" from de-admining a user that the "Community" didn't like. Try submitting a request to de-admin someone on Meta (the folks who would actually DO such things). Without a steward's request, or the DIRECT AND EXPLICIT request of the ArbCom, such requests will not be acted on. So it fails anyway, at that hurdle. SirFozzie (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Informal request for comment

Hello EC. Your commentary here made an impression on me [2] and so I'd like to hear your thoughts at this related, ongoing policy discussion [3]. Novickas (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment and query. Sorry I have been away for a while, so the question you raise is probably stale. Is there anything I can help with now? EdChem (talk) 12:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ed, another editor started an RFC (which is ongoing) at Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#Clarity_of_CLEAN_START_and_prior_blocks. Your thoughts would be welcome. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm pondering your comments on the Race and intelligence ArbCom case.

Hi, EdChem,

I have been reading with interest your comments on the current ArbCom case on Race and intelligence. One thing I've been doing to gauge how well Wikipedia policies have been implemented on that article is compare the time-stamped version of the article from June 2009 that I cited last year for a paper for professional colleagues with the current fully protected version. Even taking into account that the article has spawned daughter articles in that time, the decline in sourcing and thus quality is noticeable. Good quality secondary sources have gone missing, and low quality POV-pushing primary sources have increased in the article. Worse still, there are quite a few references that appear to be "fudged," that is that misrepresent what the sources say. I hope the ArbCom process results in decisive measures to improve the editing on that and other subjects on Wikipedia, and I appreciate your efforts to provide an outside observer's perspective on the process. All the best, -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, it is gratifying that someone is reading posts I've made and actually finds them interesting. I have been discouraged by most of the responses that have occurred, they lead me to wonder whether a permanent WP:BATTLE mentality has developed. I am curious as to what the remaining arbitrators do with the proposed decision, but I suppose time will tell. As to the article, my guess is that the present proposed decision will lead to little meaningful change... but then, I tend towards a pesimistic view presently. Kind Regards, EdChem (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hans Freeman

He was an accomplished scientist, yes. His bio is however is however gushing. At least in my opinion. Compare Alan M. Sargeson. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the article needs a lot of work, so by all means dive in and work to improve it. There certainly needs to be material on his scientific work / achievements added. I put stuff on awards etc in because it is easy to reference and it defnitively establishes his notability - and I think the result is better than the stub that was there before. However, I'm not defending that it is anything terrific. Once / As more material is added (by me or others) it'll probably need a section on career, a section on personal life, etc, and then a new lede. I know he had some (how shall I put this) rough edges, but I doubt there is WP:RS on that topic. I'm not precious about others altering changes I've made, so I appreciate you dropping by to express a view, but I have no problem with you de-gushing the current version. Regard, EdChem (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Chromacene, etc

Nice work. I was going to move your recent chromacene factoid to metallocene, because within the context of cyclopentadiene, the prep of chromocene from Cr(CO)₆ is vanishly unimportant. On this general topic, you have now seen that some long term editors have specific sensitivities/angles/perspectives. My own angle is that content should correlate with either applications (commercial or in nature, both measureably) or with fundamental importance (difficult to measure). Your choice of references are often of historic value; the other style that is sought here is indicated by WP:SECONDARY.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are looking at the changes I made to cyclopentadiene in a different way from the approach I was imagining. I noted the citation needed tag on the statement about the free cyclopentadienyl anion being rare in solution, and the reason for that fact is that metal to cyclopentadienyl bonding has a high degree of covalent character. I then went on to illustrate examples of deprotonation (simple deprotonation with a base, in the case of ferrocene formation, then the unusual deprotonation / redox process in the case of chromacene). I did not see those as being their as examples of metallocene formation, though they are that as well. To me, both were examples of standard methods for achieving the deprotonation of cyclopentadiene. I would not have included the chromacene example were it not an example of deprotonation that was distinct from the straight-forward acid-base approach. Now, the approach I took may have been bad, so feedback is always welcome, but I don't think I was adding a vanishingly unimportant factoid. On the issues of sources / references, see below. EdChem (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY

Rhodacene is an instructive example of a eta-4cyclopentadiene complex, I was wondering about that. Again, WP does not aspire to compete with specialized journals and is mandated to cite broad sources. A PhD thesis is hardly secondary. What are your views on this policy? --Smokefoot (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think ArbCom members commenting on the present Race and Intelligence case are correct - the WP community can't figure out what is primary or secondary. Some comments...

Carcharoth: ...use of primary sources to support uncontroversial statements of fact is widespread in Wikipedia ... The key is to buttress with secondary sources in disputed areas, and to not use primary sources to engage in synthesis (or indeed engage in any synthesis at all)

Cool Hand Luke Well, RSN regulars cannot reach consensus about one of these attributes, and even the author of this remedy seems unsure about the meaning.

Carcharoth Seems the secondary/primary sources debate still has some way to go for Wikipedia in general

The RSN discussion is instructive in the lack of uniformity in views about primary v secondary sources. Frankly, my view of WP:SECONDARY is that it is a clear as mud when there are such disparate views on 'primary' and 'secondary' sources. I try to be guided by using sources that directly support the statements made. If I know and have read a paper that is unchallenged and unambiguous in supporting an uncontroversial statement, then I think it is reasonable to use it as a reference. If I don't know of a specific source then I would go looking for a review article first, but I don't believe that everything must be referenced to review articles. For a start, the intro and (in some parts) discussion sections of "primary" papers are really "secondary" source material in nature. Naturally, WP:SYNTH is an issue and if I am using sources in a SYNTHy way, I expect to get questioned. I would take a much stricter view on controversial material, but I don't think that is an issue here.

Now, you asked about the use of a PhD thesis. Firstly, I note that is acceptable in some circumstances (otherwise why would the 'PhD thesis' type be included in template:cite book). Secondly, in the specific case I am using it only to assert those compounds exist. I wanted to include a reference and that is the only one I know of, but I haven't done a search yet. For the record, I do intend to look for a paper source because I do believe that would be a more appropriate / desirable reference than the thesis.

Having said all that, thanks for stopping by to express your concerns, and I'm glad you see some value in the rhodocene article. Regards, EdChem (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There are several reasons for emphasizing secondary references:

1) With a thousands of papers appearing each day (ChemAbs abstracts 3000/day, I hear), selecting primary literature is capricious. The chemical blogosphere is ideally suited for dealing with recent literature, because the blogs do not pretend to have NPOV and can cater to the hobbyists. WP editors should be rarely be asked to decipher the notability of a recent paper.

2) WP is an encyclopedia and does not cite news (WP:NOTNEWS). We seek broad perspectives and digested analyses. The standards of journals are variable - JOMC is not JACS. But readers do not understand this hierarchy. The secondary literature largely solves the twin problems of reliability and notability of the primary literature.

3) primary citations invite problems with vanity work - occasionally a big problem here (the organic chemist and occasional editor User:Hezimmerman has never edited an wikiarticle that does not cite himself. Many vanity cases are more trivial - a young person trying to draw attention to their article. The WP:SECONDARY is a superb guard against this mischief, which will only become more serious as WP gains momentum.

4) Primary citations can be the enemy of quality. Anyone can Google, but the quality of an encyclopedia article is defined by the depth of perspective.

In any case, those are some of my views. Look forward to yours.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Smokefoot, I do accept the points you are making in general, but I am not sure how relevant they are to the work I have been doing. I don't think the references I have added are really examples of recent-ism, and they do support the statements made. I am trying to give a balanced picture of the chemistry I describe, so I hope I am not coming across as capricious. For the record, I have not cited any reference where I am an author, so I don't think any suggestion of vanity editing is fair. As for the quality issue, my qualifications and experience equip me with the tools to judge what papers are worth citing. Most of the papers I have used are in prominent journals (J. Am. Chem. Soc., J. Organomet. Chem., Chem. Commun., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., Tetrahedron, etc) and are papers that have been cited a fair number of times. The pitfalls you describe are real, I just am unconvinced that what I am doing is problematic. Perhaps if you have specific concerns you could outline (other than the PhD thesis, which I agree is a less than ideal (but better than nothing) reference) we could discuss what you see as bad in the edits I have made. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Rhodocene.PNG

Hi there

Could you upload your image at the highest resolution, such that it doesn't look so grainy? Also, perhaps you can upload them at commons, such that they can be used in other language wikis?

In the mean time, you can take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Structure drawing for our style guide.

Let me know if you need any help. Thanks! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rifleman, I don't have the ability to make them in higher resolution. Since my version of ChemDraw is not functional any more, I can't make new structure drawings, all I can do is use images I already have in existing files. I readily agree that higher resolution would be better, it's just that my skills in this area are limited - these are my first attempts at uploads, and I figured these diagrams were better than none. As for commons, I have no account or experience there, but I also have no objection to the files being copied to or transferred there if that is the appropriate location. Thanks for your comments / suggestions, most of this is new to me. EdChem (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay... when I have a bit of time I might try to replace your images with something higher res. I use ChemSketch, and I like it a lot. Free for personal use. If you are inclined, you can give it a try. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)