Jump to content

User talk:EdChem/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Ribbon Rewards

For all of your hard work in creating ribbons, EdChem, I award you the following:

The Original Barnstar
For creating 2 new ribbons for the Wikipedia Ribbons page. NielsenGW (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence
For creating 5 new ribbons for the Wikipedia Ribbons page. NielsenGW (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For creating 8 new ribbons for the Wikipedia Ribbons page. NielsenGW (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks... I'm not sure having created a total of 9 ribbons means I've yet earned the third one, but I promise I'll do the 6 more needed to get there! Cheers, EdChem (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
For creating a cumulative total of at least 12 ribbons, and for the general beautification of the Wiki, I award you this barnstar. Your contribution is greatly appreciated. NielsenGW (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As per the terms of my reward offer, you deserve this, if only a little belatedly. Cheers! NielsenGW (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hey Ed. I just got home and found the 25 DYK medal on my talk page. Thank you very much! I was wondering if anyone was ever going to hand it out, as I seemed to be the only one (between 25-50) in the DYK list without one. I'm rather glad it came from you however; means all the more. Keep up the good work and I hope you're doing well! Paralympiakos (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I had been holding off on doing it, waiting for someone else to notice it was overdue. I figured it would be nice for someone else to spontaneously notice your contribution and commitment to the DYK project; unfortunately, no one did and so I decided it was time to give you the award myself. I'm glad you like it. EdChem (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Mischel vs Mitchell

Parts of this discussion have been copied from User talk:Hongkongresident — link

Hi hkr... I notice you have been editing the Stanford marshmallow experiment article which is up for DYK. Your added sections talk about someone named "Mitchell". Is this supposed to be Mischel, one of the authors from the study, or someone else? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, that was a Freudian slip, I meant Mischel. Mitchell was the science writer who wrote the Toronto Star article on Mischel. Thanks for notifying me, I've fixed the mistake. hkr (talk)12:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 Done DYK tick for the nomination, ALT2 hook. EdChem (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK

Hi Ed. I was going to comment on your ALT hooks for HA on the suggestion pages, but frankly I felt a little guilty making that thread even longer than it already is, so I thought I would just comment here. Either ALT6 or a shortened version of ALT7 (it's over 250 characters now) would be fine with me. Do you have a preference between the two? 28bytes (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

28bytes, I have no problem with comments. The HA thread was always going to be long given the initial state of the article. I am comfortable leaving it for others to decide on the hookiest option that is rules-compliant, etc. I have posted an ALT7A, by the way, which I think still conveys the facts accurately. Should the original author and nominee be consulted? EdChem (talk) 07:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. I'll drop them a note. 28bytes (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I left them a note this morning, but I didn't see any further comments, so I approved ALT7A and moved it to the prep queue. 28bytes (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks... I'll be very interested to see how many views the article gets.  :) EdChem (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Homosexuals Anonymous

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis

For future reference when you come across a copyright violation which isn't a clear speedy deletion case, you should use {{subst:copyvio}}. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi VernoWhitney, thanks for the advice. I am inexperienced in dealing with copyright issues and was having trouble figuring out what tags to add where. Regards, EdChem (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you to you and others for taking up the idea of allowing sourced BLP articles as DYK articles. I was very pleased that the idea got such a positive response, and even more pleased that others took up the project of getting it enshrined in the DYK "rules". A great example of how collaboration happens to improve the encyclopedia. Thanks once again.

Hopefully, I'll have time to source and submit an article some time soon!!! --Slp1 (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, it is nice to hear that the efforts I have put in to pushing for this change are noticed and appreciated. I hope the change leads to some unreferenced BLPs being properly referenced and expanded. EdChem (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

BARF

Hi EdChem

Nice article there... I think it's ready to be "live"? I've commented out the categories for now, as articles in the userspace should not be categorized with mainspace articles. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Rifleman - I am going to get back to that article at some point, but I do want to do more before taking it live. Sorry about the categories, when I was working on the article I thought it'd be live in a day or two, so the cat-ing wouldn't matter... silly me. EdChem (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It's almost December 10

Your MMA hook held over from October is being held for DYK on December 10, but with the promise of four additional articles to be moved to main space in early December. If you've got articles for Tom Gallicchio, Shamil Zavurov, Tomasz Narkun, and Vyacheslav Vasilevsky ready to be evaluated, time is running very short to move them to main space. Good luck! - Dravecky (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Dravecky, you are correct - I am running behind. I have moved the Narkun and Vasilevsky pages into article space. Gallicchio has been scratched and replaced by a fighter who already has an article. We could go with a four-article hook now, if you wish, or I can try to get everything done tomorrow. Thanks for asking. EdChem (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, Zavurov is done too. Will post at T:TDYK. EdChem (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for those very nice things you said on the DYK Nominations page. Flattery will get you nowhere (but I didn't say stop). :) - Tim1965 (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I meant what I said.  :) EdChem (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Vyacheslav Vasilevsky

Hello! Your submission of Vyacheslav Vasilevsky at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I have posted a question to Paralympiakos about this, and responded at T:TDYK. EdChem (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Shamil Zavurov

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tomasz Narkun

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Vyacheslav Vasilevsky

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Magomed Sultanakhmedov

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Rafał Moks

The DYK project (nominate) 12:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bruce DuMont

Hello! Your submission of Bruce DuMont at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Interior(Talk) 21:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have now commented. EdChem (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Katy Munger

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for A. M. M. Naushad

Materialscientist (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Bruce DuMont

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Oxaziridine

Materialscientist (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Civilian casualty ratio DYK

I think the thing that dismayed me most in the whole dismaying affair was your statement that you felt manipulated by me and the implication that you're going to be generally more wary and cynical because of my actions. I certainly never meant to manipulate you, and if my actions lead, no matter how unintentionally and indirectly, to you spending time looking over your shoulder when you could be doing constructive work, I have to wonder if my presence on Wikipedia is beneficial. This is a depressing thought.

The only thing I knew about you before you approved the article was that you were a participant in the DYK discussion who had a technical concern about the dispute tags. After Brewcrewer and I pointed out that it was Gatoclass, a participant in the discussion, who had placed the tags, you were silent and I assumed that was the end of a technical matter. Of course I didn't see the edit summary of your comment and thus had no way of knowing that you had any other concern. Who reads edit summaries on talk pages?

Other than your comment, there was a long discussion. Many editors didn't like the hook, so I proposed two more, one of which was accepted. I also contested their objections, and was ignored. Fine. In retrospect, I think they were right. 28bytes had noted that the article was at AfD; I noted when the AfD was closed as keep. Tiamut wanted to eliminate the word "terrorism" from the article, and I let her do that. Jiujitsuguy and brewcrewer said the article was fine as is, with brewcrewer specifically objecting to Gatoclass's behavior. Mbz1 said that the article was fine and supported (on my talk page) a small change I had made after Gatoclass began his series of edits. That is the extent of the DYK concerns expressed by anyone other than Gatoclass.

Gatoclass himself clearly did not want the article to be promoted to DYK as it was, and was acting very odd about it. He spontaneously slapped dispute tags on the article without having edited it, fooling you into thinking that the tags were a product of community consensus at the article. He said that PBS's objections to recent material constituted a holdup that would have be resolved, without noting that the objections were to his own recent changes.

You later expressed at AE that the article had two flaws from your point of view. One was that there was too much Middle East and not enough other stuff. I also thought that was a flaw. The reason for the flaw was that I only did internet research, using everything relevant that I could find, and a disproportionate amount of relevant material on the web was about the Middle East. I welcomed all the material on other regions added by other editors, including Gatoclass, and I didn't object to the associated lowering of the standard of relevance from explicit use of the ratio concept to mere quantifying of civilian casualties adjacent to combatant casualties, even though that troubled me.

The second flaw that you later expressed, that of neutrality regarding Israel, I do not agree with. I had made sure that the voice of the article in the sections relating to Israel (and in the other sections) was neutral. I was aware that all the side-taking views quoted in the section supported one of the sides, but those were the views that were on the web. If someone finds and adds a significant view about the CCR in those conflicts, published in a reliable source, supporting the other side, I will be delighted. That has not happened. Gatoclass's addition of contrasting views that are not about CCR, "for balance", are in my opinion the epitome of bad editing, because they transfer the focus from describing the actual topic to balancing an arbitrarily chosen seesaw.

When you briefly wrote at DYK talk that you were now satisfied with the article, implying that you had not been satisfied with it before, I assumed that you had not been satisfied before because of issues along the lines of the first flaw. I guess this was both because that was why I hadn't been satisfied with it, and there's a tendency to interpret unclear things according to one's own views, and because your comment on Gatoclass's "contributions" brought to my mind his major additions to the article, which addressed precisely that flaw. In any case, I had no idea that you had had a problem with the Israel section.

To sum up, when I made my changes I knew the following things about the DYK discussion: that some editors had had concerns - mainly about the hook - which I addressed and which would not be affected by my changes; that other editors were satisfied with the article as it was before Gatoclass's series of edits; that brewcrewer had seen Gatoclass's behavior as problematic; that Mbz1 was satisfied with the article and had expressed support for a small change I had already made; and that you were satisfied with the article after Gatoclass's series of edits, referring - I thought - to edits that would not be affected by my changes. In other words, I had no idea that any independent editor in the discussion would see any of my changes as detrimental to the article, and had good reason to think that two would see them as beneficial. (I knew that Gatoclass himself would oppose, of course, but after his extremely odd and pushy behavior I did not see him as independent.) I am almost certain that if I had known that you or any other independent editor would see my changes this way, I would not have made them before suggesting them on the talk page and waiting for responses.

By the way, if I am not mistaken, you are the only editor in that discussion (other than Gatoclass) who now sees my changes as detrimental. And I'm not even sure why you do. The examples you gave for this were the omission of Palestinian perspectives from the "Israeli air strikes" section, and the inclusion of Dershowitz, both of which you describe as "POV". But I never omitted a Palestinian perspective from anywhere in the article - there was never a Palestinian perspective in it. I omitted UNHRC and unnamed "human rights groups" perspectives from the article, because, as I said, they were not about the topic of the article. And there is nothing POV about adding significant views published in reliable sources - even if they are partisan, which I assume you think Dershowitz is. In fact, WP:NPOV directs us to do so. But at this point I have drifted into curiosity. It's not so important to me that we see eye to eye on whether my changes were good - there will always be disagreements. What's important to me is that you not see me or newcomers at DYK as people who might be out to manipulate you. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Jalapenos, there is a lot going on in the background to this incident of which you may be unaware, so allow me to sketch some of it out in hopes you might understand better my perspective. I will come back to your specific points in a bit...
  1. If you look through the last few archives of WT:DYK you will see several major incidents in which the DYK process and reviewers have been criticised for failing to keep inappropriate material off the main page. Probably our most active participant in keeping the project moving was accused of plagiarism and copyright violation and ended up exercising his right to vanish, and no matter the merits of the specific issue, his dedicatio, hard work and leadership are still sorely missed.
  2. Another ongoing criticism of DYK has been that we have paid excessive attention to hooks without devoting enough time to the articles themselves. Your original hook was never going to be accepted and I applaud your suggesting alternatives - that was a cooperative response, and I for one appreciated it. However, fixing the hook issue was separate from concerns about the article. A DYK rule prohibits articles nominated for deletion from promotion, which is why the AfD was noted with your nomination. If the AfD only addresses notability then its closure as keep resoles thar problem, but AfDs frequently raise other concerns and it is common practice to consider those issues. 14 of 22 editors who commented at the AfD raised issues about content, and those concerns needed to be considered. It was not just Gatoclass who expressed objections to the article's content.
  3. I have recently been in Gatoclass' shoes... the article Homosexuals Anonymous was nominated for DYK, but the article was hugely unbalanced. I spent very considerable time editing the article, adding sources, presenting all available perspectives, addressing talk page concerns, going through noticeboard issues, etc. If the nominator had reverted sections of my work, having not objected during the editing, just after it appeared on the main page I would have been outraged. How can it be anything but hugely disrespectful and deceptive to not object to the edits as they are made, support the promotion of the modified version of the article to the main page, then substantially revert the content within minutes of its main page appearance? This is really the key point which influences me - you apparently see nothing wrong with this set of actions, yet it makes a mockery of consensus as an editing model. When you made those reverts, you significantly changed the balance of the article content... intentionally or not, that action said I was wrong to judge the article balanced in promoting for a main page appearance, it said Gatoclass' changes biased the article, it said the editors criticising the content at the AfD were wrong and you were right. AGK, an experienced ArbCom clerk and respected admin, characterised your behaviour as follows: "in relation to the DYK incident the complainant cites was grossly inappropriate, and I should think that, were my attention drawn to it at that time, I would have blocked him immediately for disruptive editing—especially in light of the high-profile nature of DYKs selected for display on the Main Page" Slp1 described your actions as "highly disruptive". Tznkai found your actions sanctionable. Truly, you need to stop and think whether everyone else is wrong, or whether your actions were over the line.
To address / respond to some of your direct points:
I think the thing that dismayed me most in the whole dismaying affair was your statement that you felt manipulated by me and the implication that you're going to be generally more wary and cynical because of my actions.
I think your future DYK nominations will receive careful scrutiny, and probably that some editors will watchlist those articles followin approval through to main page appearance. That is a consequence of your actions that I think you need to accept. As for my being more wary and cynical, well, all we can do is wait and see how things develop.
I certainly never meant to manipulate you, and if my actions lead, no matter how unintentionally and indirectly, to you spending time looking over your shoulder when you could be doing constructive work, I have to wonder if my presence on Wikipedia is beneficial. This is a depressing thought.
Please don't interpret what has happened and what I have said as a judgment that your contributions are not a net benefit to Wikipedia. I haven't made any such judgment about you. Plenty of editors make mistakes, act in ways that cause problems, and end up putting all that behind them. The thing is, the next few steps are up to you. You can continue to declare that you made no mistakes and were correct in all respects and have been wrongly sanctioned, you can continue to try persuading everyone to adopt your view, or you can reflect on the situation and consider what is the best way forward from where you are presently. The ball is in your court.
One point particularly to consider is the problem of projecting your views in interpreting others' comments. You have explained how your perspective led to underestimating what my concerns were. I have already stated that I should have expressed more clearly my concerns. This is a frequent problem with wiki-communication, which becomes worse when tensions are higher. And, it is continuing now... you suggest that I am the only critic of your actions, disregarding the views at AE and the likely views of the critics of the Israeli content at AfD. I could go on point-for-point on content, but that strikes me as unproductive.
So, instead, I'll close with a few last thoughts. Firstly, I have nominated articles for editors' first DYKs, and I encourage broad participation in the project. I am glad to welcome newcomers and help them with the challenges of collaborative DYK-ing, but your actions amounted to blatant gaming of the system (no matter your intentions) and have unsurprisingly provoked a strong response. I can understand why that leaves you upset and stressed, but it is the effect that follows from your actions. Second, this is not an unresolvable situation, but what happens next and how editors respond to you in the future depends on what you choose to do. I don't like seeing anyone leave but the consensus model of Wikipedia is not negotiable. Thirdly, as I said earlier, I could and should have communicated more effectively and clearly... I accept that I share some responsibility for mis-communication. Fourthly, I think you need to read up more on adding dispute tags, they do not require consensus for placement and unilaterally removing that can be seen as disruptive editing. Fifthly, please consider how you will look to others when you argue to include a partisan view but exclude a UN body. Finally - and most importantly - if you take nothing else from my comments, please consider this: now is the time to stop and really think deeply about what others have said and what has happened. Don't react precipitously based on how you feel, pause and reflect for a while. Please. EdChem (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your lengthy and often thoughtful response. I was not aware of any of those background events. I want to clear up one misunderstanding between us reflected in your comment. I did not suggest, and it would be absurd of me to think, that you were the only critic of my actions, or the manner in which I countered some of Gatoclass's changes. What I suggested was that you are the only participant in the DYK discussion who has expressed a problem with the content of the article in the form that my changes created. Indeed, the wide range of interpretations of the manner in which I did things has provoked reflection. There are many other thing to say, but I doubt saying them would be the best use of our time. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, Jalapenos. I sincerely hope that we have better interactions in the future. Generating high-quality content for the 'pedia is the reason we are here, and the DYK project welcomes such content for featuring on the main page. Nominations in controversial areas can be contentious, so I hope that your future nominations run more smoothly. Regards, EdChem (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

student pages to nominate for DYK

Hi EdChem, Last week you approached me with a couple of recommended pages to feature in the DIK section, and I now have a couple: Insertion reaction and Isolobal principle. There is one more Solvatochromism that the students have not made "live" yet, but when they do, I will let you know. This would be great for the students if these pages could be featured. Thank you! MichChemGSI (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mich... I am going to need to come back to this tomorrow because it is very late here, but I do have a couple of comments / questions after a quick look.
  1. Will you or the students be available to address concerns / issues raised either by me or by the DYK reviewers? Looking quickly I can see issues that will need to be addressed to pass DYK, and also issues that should be addressed before featuring on the main page. It is up to reviewers how much of the second category is raised in the review.
  2. Do you have suggestions for hooks - that is, interesting facts from the article that (in a single sentence) will grab the attention of main page readers? They have to be directly supported by a reference.
  3. I see you put insertion reaction into main space, by cut-and-paste... this is not a good thing to do, and creates a problem that will now have to be addressed. In simple terms, by transferring the text to main space you asserted that you wrote it, yet the edit hisotry of the sandbox where it was developed shows that it was written by others. That is a violation of the licenses under which Wikipedia operates. Below the edit box it says that you "irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL", but they aren't your contributions and so you cannot give this release. It would be like me signing the copyright transfer between you and a journal for a paper you wrote - I can't hand your copyright to the journal because it isn't mine. Only the students can release their contributions. Cut-and-paste moves are discouraged partly for this reason. For the future, before any similar projects are attempted, I think we should talk about how to structure them to avoid the issues that have come up this time. By the way, this is also going to raise a problem with the DYKcredit. :(
Please don't be discouraged by any of this - Wikipedia takes some getting used to, and none of these issues are that big. But, the smoother the process can be, the better. Regards, EdChem (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi EdChem, Great! Thank you. especially for the reassurance that these are quite easy fixes.
  1. is there a way for usernames to be transfered? I think that I heard that this was possible. I will get the students who were in the group to create their own usernames so that they can be contacted. Do you know how one does this? I can also do a bit of research.
  2. I will think about these as I read the pages more carefully and have the students also come up with some.
  3. I'm sorry, this will be solved when we establish #1 point...again, i didn't realize that this would be a problem although the students did give me permission to bypass the problems they were having and then to have their work be live before the semester ended.
Thank you again for all of your help. Let me know how we can transfer usernames. MichChemGSI (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi MichChemGSI... we are making progress on insertion reaction and I have nominated isolobal principle for DYK here.
  1. Users can be renamed at WP:Changing Username, but a user may only be used by one single individual (see WP:U for the username policy). They can create their own users any time (I recommend choosing a pseudonym rather than using a real name) but attributing the edits of the joint account to the new account is not possible, so far as I am aware.
  2. I suggested a hook for isolobal principle at the nomination - we can suggest alternatives if you have other suggestions. I can tell you now that the nomination will be considered insufficiently referenced as the guideline is one inline citation per paragraph. Something needs to be done about this.
  3. Problems with student projects aren't uncommon, and you can see some of the predictions of a need to do some clean-up are coming true. I am not an administrator so I can't actually fix some things, just request others to work on them. However, I suspect I am less jaded / stressed than some people you have encountered. I don't mind helping out, I just hope that your future projects run more smoothly.  :) EdChem (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Insertion reaction is now back, with appropriate history, and I have nominated it for DYK here. Again, you may suggest alternative hooks if you wish. I have posted a message to the insertion reaction students at User talk:Chem507f10grp3#DYK nomination and to the isolobal principle students at User talk:Chem507f10grp5#DYK nomination. EdChem (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Isolobal principle

Thanks ... could you spare some time to get the QYK queues packed with hooks? Victuallers (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the typo. It did have the desired affect and brought forward qualified help. Others can aspire Victuallers (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It's ok. To fill you in on the background: I saw the question from MichChemGSI (the instructor of the students) and they've had a rough time with demands being made of them, so I can see the concern of being asked to do something else. You asked nicely and I understand the need (I review more than queue prep), I'm just in favour of smoothing the path for newbies where practicable.  :) Regards, EdChem (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your note on my talk page, Ed. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
No problem, Drmies. EdChem (talk) 08:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Minor excitement at ANI

Thanks for your comments on the licensing/page-moving issue, I need to look into that a bit further.

On a topic about as unrelated as it could be, I've mentioned another editor's behaviour towards you here at ANI as it seemed relevant to an issue that someone raised about them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem on providing my $0.02 on your group project question. As for the ANI, thanks for the notification but I do not feel any need to contribute to the discussion. The indefinite block seems like overkill to me (Mbz1, if you are reading this, I would not have called for that) but others seem to be aware of more background than I, and ANI contributors can judge her posts and mine for themselves. EdChem (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Insertion reaction

Season's Greetings! --The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you again for your help on the insertion reaction page. We had a rather rough start with the editing process and I wanted to thank you for your help in improving our page and hopefully improving our program so that future chem classes at UM will be more effective Wikipedia editors. Chem507f10grp3 (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate your comments. Starting editing at Wikipedia can be tough, unfortunately. Hopefully you will decide to stick around with new individual accounts, and we can work on further improvements to the insertion reaction article. EdChem (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on Animations

Hi EdChem, I very much want to thank you for all that you have done to help us work with the community, your unrelenting patience and then helping us get a few chemistry articles up in the DIK section! That was really exciting for us and something that we'd like to keep doing in order to get the students excited about their contributions.

I'd like to get your thoughts on something new that we would like to try. As we are planning for next semester and how to expand the project, we would like to take advantage of the new media allowances on Wikipedia and insert animations for readers to better understand the arrow-pushing process of mechanisms. We create animations using a gifbuilder, and I have added one here in EAS. What are your thoughts about these animations? and How can we best insert them/make them stick and for the community to accept them? Thanks for all of your help! (And please comment on my talk page? Thanks! sorry for not catching the DIK hook requests, the holidays travel really hinders internet access, but I should be back to consistent internet after the new year) MichChemGSI (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to keep helping / chatting. As far as animations go, I think the idea is good. I think the EAS example runs too fast, though. On the DYK issues, it'd be good to address the concerns raised, even now that the article has been on the main page. Wikipedia runs on a consensus and collaboration model, so taking part in discussions and being seen to participate with the community is the best way to build a relationship with others in the WikiProjects. Adding an image is rarely going to be controversial in the way that replacing a whole article can be. Developing a new article in user space and then introducing it would be much less potentially probelmatic, by the way, if you can find new articles that are needed. Regards, EdChem (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ansa

We know that you are a big fan of rhodocene dimer, but would it really be considered ansa (=handle) metallocene? At least among the organometallic community, probably not.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Smokefoot, my understanding of ansa-metallocenes was that it included bridged species with multiple metal centres. In particular, I was taught that ferrocenyl polymers formed by ring-opening polymerisations such as those described here fall within the meaning of the term 'ansa-metallocene'. WP's own ansa dab page notes that it has the meaning of 'bridge' in chemistry, and it is this sense that I understood the rhodocene dimer to be an ansa-metallocene. Certainly, there are more important examples for the ansa-metallocene article, like this example where different ansa-zirconocene dichloride catalysts lead to controlling for syndiotactic, isotactic, or atactic polypropylene. Of course, if consensus is that ansa-metallocenes can only have a bridges that join two Cp or substituted Cp ligands together then I'm not going to get into an edit war about it, but my understanding is that that is not the only meaning of the term. EdChem (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, Manners's precursors are ansa metallocenes, indeed. The resulting polymers are not ansa: they lack the "handle". Otherwise all sorts of things would be called ansa. I am just surprised since you seem to have such detailed info on rhodocene. You might check fulvalene nomenclature, if you are still open-minded about the matter. BTW, looks like no one was able to reconcile migratory insertion with the school report from Michigan. It was really disappointing to see read such a narrow perspective foisted by a prof and students. At least you added some material to show them the broader interpretation of insertion.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2011 WikiCup!

Hello, happy new year and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 18:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Student projects - attribution and licensing

I saw your comments above about problems with attribution and copyright when copy-pasting material. I'm helping out with mentoring groups of students on another project, and I think we may be about to run into a similar problem.

The plan that's been suggested is as follows:

  • the teacher has drawn up a list of existing WP articles in the topic area that need improvement
  • each group of students selects one article
  • each student within the group has their own WP account
  • one of the students copies the contents of their group's chosen article from mainspace into a Sandbox in that student's userspace
  • all of the students in the group then work on the sandbox version
  • somehow the completed sandbox material gets put into mainspace as the real article

Now, the good part about this, is that the "lead" student in each group, will at least have the paste-back-into-mainspace edit attributed to them. However, any content contributed by the other students within that group, would remain unattributed. (Unless of course they copy the sandbox version piece-by-piece, with each student copying their changes - or what they remember as their changes - into the mainspace article. One can imagine this not being very accurate at all.)

Of course, if they were creating an article from nothing - or completely deleting an entirely unsuitable existing article and replacing it - then the editing history of the sandbox could be brought across by moving the sandbox directly into mainspace. But that's not what's happening; they are just planning to improve the article that's already there, so the editing history for the existing mainspace article has to stay as well.

I think the intention is definitely to use a Sandbox (user sub-page) rather than to edit the existing mainspace article in situ; these are Middle School students editing Wikipedia for the first time, so letting several dozen of them loose on half a dozen mainspace articles simultaneously would cause chaos.

Having looked around briefly, the only solution if that's how they want to do it, is to use the {{Copied}} template on the talk page of the mainspace article that gets pasted-over; thus pointing back to the userpage sandbox and its edit history, and thereby satisfying the license conditions.

Does this make sense? Is there a better way?

Thanks in advance for your help! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This seems ok to me, except for two issues...
  1. The last step you propose is definitely wrong, a cut-and-paste move is not the way to go. When the sandbox version is ready, go to requested moves (WP:RM) and ask that an admin do the move, merging the history of the sandbox into the main article so that the history is transferred too.

    By the way, by transferring the history it would be possible to nominate the new version for DYK (assuming a x5 expansion) with all the collaborating students being credited.

  2. Moving a whole new updated version in can annoy editors who have worked on the article, I would smooth the waters by announcing your intentions to the article's user page at the start, and when requesting the move. I can understand the concern about working in article space with new / inexperienced wikipedians, but you should be aware that working in a sandbox has disadvantages as well as advantages. Before doing any move someone should check for significant alterations to the article in main space that might have occurred as your group worked in a sand box.
Does that cover your questions? I hope so. :) Regards, EdChem (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually I'm still confused about the page histories :)
At WP:RM it lists "Requesting that page histories be merged" under "Processes beyond the scope of this page", and instead suggests asking at WP:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. The introduction to which, doesn't sound like it's intended for what we're trying to do. Is this out of date or misleading?
However, in cases where the mainspace article has had no edits while the work on the sandbox version has been happening, I guess this is not a major task for an admin dealing with it; the sandbox-page replaces the mainspace page, and the history of the sandbox is added at the end (chronologically speaking) of the history of the mainspace page.
What if there have been edits to the mainspace article occurring while there has also been work happening on the sandbox version? In this case, how are both sets of changes (which occurred within the same timeframe, to two different pieces of text, and interleaving with each other) to be put together, while still properly attributing both sets of changes in the finished result? In addition, however that is done, won't the resulting history inevitably end up being incoherent - since history entries would be interleaved (with one edit being an edit made to the sandbox, and the next an edit made to the mainspace article, or vice versa) with no way of telling which of them was applied to which "version" (sandbox or mainspace) when viewing the history of the final article?
(Incidentally, that latter issue, but with a different cause, seems to be mentioned at WP:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#Parallel_versions where it says "that would shuffle the parallel editing histories together in one list and make a mess" and suggests using the {{Copied}} template instead, which I think is where I got the idea from.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Good questions. I am not an administrator, and in any case you are asking about a specialised area, so I'll invite an admin experienced in cut-and-paste issues to comment after I post this. In the meantime, I can point you to how the problem / issue was resolved at insertion reaction where there is a link on the talk page to an "old version". The reason I suggested asking at WP:RM is that a non-admin can't move the page from user space over an existing article and the alternative of a cut-and-paste move is, as I have noted, undesirable from a licensing and history perspective. Perhaps the request is meant to go to WP:Cut and paste move repair holding pen but to me that seems like the place to go to fix a cut and paste move that shouldn't have been done, not to avoid making one - maybe that page needs a re-name. Anyway, I'll invite an experienced admin opinion because whilst I am not sure of the right way to deal with these situations, I am sure of several wrong ways to avoid. EdChem (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
NB:Input requested here from admin Anthony Appleyard. EdChem (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

F and A

Hi Ed, any chance you might be able to judge the FA promotions at The Signpost's "F and A" for next week? I would mean a paragraph on your choice, technical, subjective, what you wish, Saturday or Sunday UTC. Please let me know. Thanks. Tony (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tony, this is an unexpected request. I'm honoured to be asked, thanks. I have re-read several examples of these comments / judgments from previous Signpost's (I read it, I just don't subscribe), and I am pleased to accept your request. How does the process work? I'm a relative newcomer to FA processes (rhodocene, being reviewed at present, is my first nomination). Thanks. EdChem (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Ed, thanks. Publication is not until late tomorrow, but I may need to add/substitute an image depending on your choice. If you want a larger pool than the four aside from your own article, there was a tranche two weeks ago that we had no judge for (I've linked from the lead-in to your text on the page, but if that pool is now too large, please revert my addition of that extra bit in the lead-in. This week's page. Tony (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority
  • Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
  • You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Brittany CoxXx

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors

I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sadads... I have considered your suggestion but am concerned about being able to reliably offer the time this would require. I do think the program is valuable and hope you continue to facilitate the participation of new university-educated editors. EdChem (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Greece Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Principality of Sealand Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and United Kingdom Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for David Kato

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Rhodocene

Yes, my apologies. I meant to get back to it after some of the dust had settled on the level of audience the article needed to reach (advanced organometallics for the layman seems ridiculous), and then just sort of drifted away. I think it is very good, and the changes have made it better. I will get back there later today to add / finalize my comments. Canada Hky (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on your FA! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Four Award

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Rhodocene.

Great work! LittleMountain5 23:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdChem/Archive_4&oldid=1078882418"