User talk:EdChem/Archive 10

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Jason Graae
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Russian gay propaganda law
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Jason Graae
Great work with this. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ed, I appreciate the recognition. :)  Just wish I could get a suitable image for the article.  EdChem (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Timothy N. Philpot
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Section 127 of the Australian Constitution
Hello! Your submission of Section 127 of the Australian Constitution at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Edwardx (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Six Dance Lessons in Six Weeks
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Predatory conference
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Aluminium sulfacetate
Hello! Your submission of Aluminium sulfacetate at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Section 127 of the Australian Constitution
Vanamonde (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Jason Graae
Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Jason Graae has been completed.

I spent a great deal of time trying to come up with a way to create sections for your article that made sense without simply reorganizing it all in date order. I hope that you approve of my solution. I added an additional production coming in 2017.

You will notice that I archived one of the article’s citations (#1). I suggest that you archive the rest of the article’s URLs as time allows. This ensures that the article's references are available "forever" and that it doesn’t develop "dead links" over time. The site I use is https://archive.org/web/. Simply copy the URL in the citation and paste it in the "Save Page Now" box on the archive.org site and click save. This creates a copy of the original page and provides you with a new URL to add to the original citation. If you look at the URL I've archived you'll see the syntax. You add the new URL to the end of the original citation like this: |archiveurl=http etc|archivedate=3 December 2016}}. Not all websites allow archiving - CBS TV news and the NY Times are two I've come across, so there's not much you can do about that unless there is an alternate citation you could use.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, . Thank you very much for working on the Jason Graae article, and breaking it up into smaller sections.  Good idea on archiving links, I've been meaning to start doing that.  EdChem (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for E-baby
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Evo-creo article
Hi Ed. I just wanted to expand on something. I find myself in a very odd position with that student article; even though I have clearly declared both my Wiki Ed and volunteer accounts, I find myself in a really odd position when it touches on a topic that was, for a long time, on of my main areas of interest on Wikipedia (and by far the one that drew me into the most drama). It's one area where I won't use admin tools, or even admin "authority" (so to speak). I know I wanted to just redirect the article from day one, but it got very complicated very quickly in terms of how to juggle two identities. Guettarda/Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi /  (not sure which you prefer) and thanks for stopping by.  I don't doubt the new evo-creo article will end up as a redirect, and I can't know what advice you offer Gabriel or the instructor.  I must apologise for any implication from me that the situation is your fault; I am interested in us collectively learning from the situation to try to avoid a repeat occurring.  Of course I accept that you can only advise,and I was unaware of your background in relation to the topic which I recognise complicates matters for you – and even if that were not the case, you as advisor just redirecting a page as it is worked on would hardly help you to maintain an effective working relationship with the students or their instructor.  I am sure that juggling the two identities is diffcult at times, and near-impossible if you are already involved in the topic from the past, so I understand your position was highly complicated and consequently unusually constrained.  Maybe this is a circumstance where another Education Program expert could be invited to give a third opinion?  My impression is that Gabriel has some valid points about our existing article, even if the article that resulted is a content fork written with a flawed approach.  So I do think there is value that can come out of the work – though it may be overly optimistic to hope that that happens without my doing much of it.
 * I look at the list at WT:CHEMISTRY and see a mess to be cleaned up which stretches across numerous topics and WikiProjects and even courses, and so I think understanding what happened is helpful going forward. It sounds like, from what you have said, that you were not being listened to, which is certainly one factor in explaining how we got here – though I will be curious to see if Gabriel comments and whether students / the instructor were hearing and understanding what you were saying.  Another factor is the that it was the instructor's first Wikipedia project, and misalignment of academic and encyclopaedic goals seems likely.  Is another factor that our materials to support projects are inadequate in some areas, or even so long as to be overwhelming.  I looked at the material on OR and wonder if it says enough to be clear to a novice, and whether mention of WP:SYNTH would be helpful.  SYNTH does give a simple example, but maybe it is difficult to extrapolate from it to see why "Creationists believe X(ref) and evolutionsist believe Y(ref)" is potentially problematic (as I tried to explain to Gabriel here).  If we can get the instructor to give a perspective, and a student, and you, we may see where the disconnects in perception are and learn what could be improved in the future.
 * I also think that some of the reactions / responses at this and other problematic new articles has a strong flavour of "oh no, not again", which is understandable but hardly fair to the students... but then the community's frustration is hardly inappropriate either. All up, we have a mess that was predictable early on.  Only input from you and those involved can help the rest of us understandable if it was avoidable in practical terms (it certainly was avoidable in theory, but then reality sometimes disproves theory).  My goal is to understand so we can improve, not to judge or blame, and I apologise again for any comments I've made that imply the latter.  I will add a note to ENB to this effect.  I'm happy to chat further here or at ENB, and thanks again for stopping by.  EdChem (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Stöber process
Hello! Your submission of Stöber process at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder,, I will add the Joshn White review as QPQ and need to get to the substantive comments. EdChem (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar for all your help with the Stöber Process
Thank you,. It has taken me a long time to get back to this, but I have responded the Graeme's concerns, added a QPQ review (you can look at my DYKs at user:EdChem/DYK if you are interested in reading more reviews), and added to the article. I hope to see you nominating an article at DYK when you are ready. :) EdChem (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup December newsletter: WikiCup 2017
On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):
 * First place – $200
 * Second & Third place – $50 each
 * Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address. After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are, , and.

Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 25 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * On the James Oakley (judge) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=751406870 your edit] caused a URL error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F751406870%7CJames Oakley (judge)%5D%5D Ask for help])
 * EdChem (talk) 11:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
The nominator appears to have provided some QPQ reviews for you to consider. North America1000 21:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ EdChem (talk) 11:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
The nominator has replied to a concern you had at the discussion. North America1000 21:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ EdChem (talk) 11:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Vom Himmel hoch, o Engel, kommt
I intend to reopen this thread on the DYK discussion page. I think I have a right to do so as the originator of the thread and as someone not involved in the final acrimonious discussion which initiated your closure. My purpose in reopening it is to give Fram an opportunity to respond to Kevmin's post of 20.24. You are welcome to close it again if that proves necessary! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying me that you were re-opening the discussion. Personally, if I were to re-open a discussion, I would add a link to the close so that others can see what the closer said.  Perhaps you'd consider that in future cases.  I don't doubt that others have the right to undo my close, so you don't need to convince me that your action was permitted.  That said, I don't think it was a good idea to re-open it, and I think collapsing part of the thread in the process was unwise.  I tried in my close to note that your concern had been addressed, and I certainly think it was the right thing to do to check when you were unsure.  I made a similar mistake recently with one of my nominations with a German-language source, and did not realise the reviewer was a native speaker so called for input from a German speaker I knew with topic knowledge (it was a chemistry hook).  When I learned my reviewer was a native speaker, however, I took the view that she was likely to be right and so I should work to understand the issue.  I know you have copped a lot of criticism lately, and that TRM and Fram can both be overly harsh and overly quick to criticise, so I so appreciate why you might feel defensive and harried (those are my impressions, I'm sorry if I am misreading your experience).  I have certainly felt like a bowl of petunias at times (not sure if you'll know that reference).  I am not surprised that the thread was re-closed again, and I am glad it was done quickly as it could have got nastier very fast.  I have considered getting into promoting hooks, it certainly needs more editors, but it is also a role for being a target for making mistakes while learning.  :(  I wish I could see a way to get a productive discussion of what is needed for the DYK project, because they keep devolving into acrimony.  Anyway, thanks for stopping by and I'm curious about any thoughts you might have.  Regards, EdChem (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not sure about the protocol for archiving or reopening talk page threads, who can do it and who should not. The reason I hid part of the thread was to make it clear what question raised by Kevmin I was referring to. As you will see, it led to further acrimony so it was probably a mistake reopening it. Seasons greetings to you, Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Y Sap
Thanks for the extra citations but in that article they are ordered according to the text they refer to, i.e the first citation is for the first part of a sentence or paragraph. if I put the cite in the wrong place, apols. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

 * Thank you,, I hope you had a wonderful Christmas and have a great New Year! I am very much hoping for a 2017 that is a marked improvement on 2016.  :)  Also, I hope I can continue to call on your chemistry expertise and Wiki-knowledge into the future.  Cheers!  EdChem (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

ALT hook for Sarai Gonzalez
Hi, I answered you at WT:DYK. Would you be able to approve (or comment) on the hook there so it can be changed in the queue? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ discussion continuing at WT:DYK. EdChem (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Aluminium sulfacetate
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Colin Raston
I can't add anything of significance to the article, but I thought you would like to know that Colin was my head of department at Leeds during his brief tenure there. He was very keen on green chemistry. Michaela Hardy (supramolecular chemistry, another Aussie) came with him and is still on the staff at Leeds. Petergans (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for stopping by.  I wrote the Raston article after seeing a TV show that illustrated the IgNobel work on restoring the globular protein structure of heated egg white and thought it would make a good DYK hook.  Adding more content would be good, I think I saw some green chemistry mentioned in the literature I looked at, but I was just sketching an outline of some of his work.  It'd be great to see it further expanded.  By the way, I was amused by some of the howler examples on your user page, it is frightening the sorts of errors that can persist in article space.  Regards.  EdChem (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Hogmanay!

 * Hi, thanks for the message. I'm certainly glad to see 2016 gone!  :)  EdChem (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Mackenzie Ziegler
Hi. You said that you found some reliable sources that are not mentioned in the article. If you would post the urls to my Talk page, I'll look at them and see if we can use them in the article. Of course, they might be just additional sources for facts that we have already included with other sources, but I'll look at them carefully. Thanks, and Happy New Year! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I included them in my !vote then lost the browser so they are gone. Here is the "Mackenzie Ziegler" search at the Teen Vogue site, 20 articles (some not her, no doubt).  I think there was also one more the International Business Times.  Pittsburg's WPXI site had a couple of pieces of the Ziegler's in a parade, and there were mentions in Pittsburg newspapers (Pittsburg Gazette-Times, Pittsburg Business something).  I didn't look at all in detail or for use in the article, some may be passing mentions or devoted mostly to Maddie, but I saw enough to support a "Keep" view.  Sorry, I need to go out shortly and can't take time to dig them up again.  EdChem (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/James Oakley (politician)
EdChem, now that Marconi hook has been promoted without a link to Oakley, it's time to turn the Oakley into a real nomination if you're still interested in pursuing it. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pyrithione
Hello! Your submission of Pyrithione at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Shooting of Benjamin Marconi
 Schwede 66  00:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Zeitschrift für Kristallographie – Crystalline Materials
 Schwede 66  00:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

HMB
Do you really think that an very old, completely useless reaction merits space in ZnCl2 article? I agree, the anecdote merits mention in hexamethylbenzene, but in zinc chloride? Seems like WP:UNDUE. We are all keen to contribute content, but isnt there something a little more weighty out there if one wants to serve readers interested in zinc chloride? --Smokefoot (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , it illustrates that was being used as early as 1880, with part of first function in the reaction apparently being as a Lewis acid for a Friedel-Crafts alkylation, which fits with the examples which immediately follow it, and it is catalysing an interesting (though no longer used) construction of a 12 carbon skeleton from a one carbon starting material.  It is an example offered in a 118 page review from a journal (secondary source) I am surprised we do not include (Catalysis Reviews, 2015 IF = 7.526).  I have added the reference to the methanol article where it supports the (previously unreferenced) methanol to gasoline material.  So, in addition to adding content, in this process I have established that:
 * We have a missing article on a journal
 * There were broken OrgSynth refs on the zinc chloride page, now repaired
 * A supporting reference has been added on the methanol page to this highly cited review article
 * If you think what I have done is UNDUE, you are (as always) free to edit / revert and see what the views are at the article talk page. When I find something that interests me, I often follow leads and edit as I go.  In this case, I found this when looking into the WP:ITN/C proposal to have a front page blurb about the 6 co-ordinate carbon structure reported in the dication of hexamethylbenzene.  I edit Wikipedia because I enjoy it and learn from it, and when I have started something I'll put effort into building it, but I don't always edit to build a systematic encyclopaedic article on a topic from the ground out.  I recognise that small additions here and there can lead to an overall UNDUE issue, which is why I appreciate others coming along and tweaking or even removing content.  I do appreciate you stopping by, happy to discuss editing.  I hope you can see and accept that my addition to zinc chloride is not what I might have done had I come to the article with the aim of expanding / developing content on zinc chloride, but I didn't come to write about zinc chloride in general but instead to add something interesting fitting within the existing content.  Had it been zinc chloride catalysing a thoroughly unexceptional reaction, like (say) the Friedel-Crafts ethylation of an activated benzene with EtCl / ZnCl2, then I would not have added it.  However, what I added offers an example of alkylation (which was not there) and an unusual building of a carbon skeleton.  I know that we don't want the interesting to crowd out the important, but that doesn't mean not including some of the interesting.  I don't think I have obscured the important, but you may disagree.  Anyway, having written too much, if you want to make changes, go for it.  I'm happy to say thanks when a change to what I have added results in an improvement to the encyclopaedia, and certainly an external perspective can see flaws more readily.  I don't go in for edit warring, so the worst I'd do is start an article talk page discussion, and abide by the consensus.  Regards, EdChem (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologize for making that remark. Stupid of me to criticize your excellent and well intentioned efforts, one of many I know.  There was no justification for my rudeness, its just that I sometimes assume the worst.  So thanks for your full response and forbearance with me, again. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Stöber process
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On the Hexamethylbenzene page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=759549280 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F759549280%7CHexamethylbenzene%5D%5D Ask for help])

Talkback
North America1000 10:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of James Oakley (politician)
Hello! Your submission of James Oakley (politician) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Pyrithione
 Schwede 66  00:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Dimethylacetylene cyclotrimerisation with titanium tetrachloride catalyst.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dimethylacetylene cyclotrimerisation with titanium tetrachloride catalyst.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Leyo 13:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

trifluoroperacetic acid DYK
Hi there. Should I complete the review of Template:Did you know nominations/trifluoroperacetic acid, or are you and DMacks still updating trifluoroperacetic acid? Mind matrix  00:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks for asking.  is still planning to further expand the section Trifluoroperacetic acid.  If you look in that section, there is hidden text from me with details of references which he wanted.  I am also contemplating making it a double hook by adding the bio of William D. Emmons who developed / pioneered it as a laboratory reagent.  I have already expanded it from 541 characters to 1153 characters and the article links to a 2 page obituary that is not used, so an expansion to the necessary x5 size is not difficult. DMacks, any idea when you'll get a chance to look at the arene oxidative cleavage (no pressure, just asking for information for Mindmatrix).  Mindmatrix, do you mind another couple of days, and reviewing the second article (for a second QPQ credit for you)?  I realise I'll need to provide another QPQ review.  EdChem (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I wasn't expecting to have to review a second article, but I don't mind. Take as much time as you need, but please leave a message on my talk page when one or both of the articles are ready. This means I'll likely review in the middle of next week at the earliest. (BTW: you don't really need to expand trifluoroperacetic acid further for DYK, you can always add material afterward.) Mind  matrix  02:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt the article complies with DYK requirements, though it is close to being complete and that is a good place for main page exposure. I think we may put it up for GA, actually, which would be great for what started as creating a stub on a compound missing from WP.  :)  EdChem (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Harv Errors

 * It so happens that I got Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books from User:Dr. Blofeld.
 * He happened to be the #1 producer of Did You Knows at over 1600 (before he retired).
 * The Citation Tool is easy to work with (just drop in a Google Books URL) and it produces the "sfn" reference and source. I'll help on this.
 * In addition, you need to get the Harv Error tool from the Help Desk (with instructions) = it then shows this for your reference formatting errors.
 * I have learned many of these "tricks-of-the-trade" working with the top 3 DYK producers over the years.
 * I used many of these tools for the 30,0000 character Good Article I created of Carl Edgar Myers (0.0% Earwig). --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the errors from a typo. I think the article flows better now, though the connection to Plankinton is still unclear on the sequence and when the engagement happened.  Other individual works should be highlighted, in my view, and then the lede needs expansion.  It is well over the character requirements for DYK, at least.  What do you think of the article presently?  Also, from the above, I suspect I've upset you.  I would not suggest you are inexperienced nor am /I trying to criticise your work, and I'm sorry if that is the impression I am creating.  EdChem (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not at all upset. I think the article is developing out very good and definitely meets all the DYK requirements. Its in the area of what I would say as a Good Article = you have polished it very good with your grinding stone tools. BTW, you fixed the ref errors and they no longer show as red. I'll continue watching television, so we don't have edit conflicts. What would you think if I added you as a co-creator for John Plankinton and Elizabeth Plankinton = that way then you will get 2 more DYK credits (besides the one for Richard Henry Park). So, it is O.K. to add you?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to sleep so won't be making changes for at least 8 hours, if you want to make changes. Any thoughts on which other monuments / works belong in the works section?  Thanks for the offer on other DYK credits, but please  hold off for the moment.  I want to make sure I have made sufficient contributions to the article to justify inclusion.  Chat more tomorrow.  EdChem (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, O.K. = I am at UTC -5 hours (13:45 UTC = 8:45 a.m. in the morning to me). I figure you are about 12 hours difference.
 * I put the Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books on my desktop for quick access.
 * Here is what you get AFTER replacing with author's last name & first name in appropriate boxes and click on Make Citation.
 * Replace then the "harv" with "sfn". Then add the source to the article (with a asterisk star)
 * Ask if you have questions = I have done it this way for over 400 DYKs. Still suggest to get handy Harv Error "red indicator detector" from Help Desk (with instructions).--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Morning, Doug (well... morning for me). I'm in Sydney, so 13:45 UTC is 00:45 for me.  Thanks for the images of the tool, though I definitely prefer the referencing with ref tags I am used to.  Also, for this book, the tool gives authorship to the Museum and two authors, which is inaccurate.  Looking at page iii of the book, it clearly has one editor, Tolles, with three authors who each wrote some of the chapters, which is why I separated the chapter refs as I did, it seemed the easiest way to reflect accurately the individual authorships.  It is sadly common for the info on the google books summary page to be different from that shown in the front pages of the book, and I take the latter as accurate.  In this case, the google author list is incomplete as Tolles wrote some chapters, and the title mixes the series and volume names.  I can see the use of the tool but its output needs checking against the source. Getting the harv error detector is a good idea, thanks.  EdChem (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I have added to the Elizabeth Plankinton House and John Plankinton articles, and I think I am justified now in accepting your suggestion of DYKmake credits on those as well as the Richard Henry Park article. On the Elizabeth Plankinton article itself, there is the problem that I was the reviewer, so if I became a co-author we'd need to call for a new review. Regarding the image from Park's passport and the church record of the marriage, can we use the flickr images as part of references? I do wonder with Park whether other monuments should have their own sections (Edgar Allen Poe, for example, and the one of the ex-VP from 1890), but are any of these reasons to hold up adding the DYK nom? I think adding the refs on the marriage and birth place is enough for DYK purposes. EdChem (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll add you as the co-creator for Elizabeth Plankinton House and John Plankinton articles. I'll leave Elizabeth Plankinton the way it is, as NOT to delay and hold up the DYK nomination. I believe it's alright to use passport and county records as references = I'll put in articles accordingly. I do believe we are all done (complete with all needed QPQs) and ready for the 3-in-1 hook to become an official Did You Know = hopefully in the #1 queue position with the Elizabeth Plankinton House mansion picture. Thanks for all your great contributions to these articles. Good-night!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Preparing images for upload
Hi EdChem. I'm posting the link above due to your question concerning JPEG and PNG. --Leyo 09:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, useful and interesting page. I'll try to remember to avoid JPG for anything but photos.  EdChem (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have uploaded an image of a line drawing from 1886, in two versions – a jpg and a png. They are:
 * File:John Plankinton and William Plankinton mansions in 1886.jpg
 * File:John Plankinton and William Plankinton mansions in 1886.png
 * I am not sure which is the more suitable to keep, as this image is, at least, photo-like. Can you advise?  Thanks.  EdChem (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In such cases, it's best to upload both versions. For explanations, see c:Template:Archival version and c:Template:Compressed version. --Leyo 07:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC) PS. Please note that a JPEG version should not be converted to PNG, because by having saved a file as a JPEG once the compression artifacts have already been introduced.