User talk:EdChem/Archive 11

Michigan

 * FYI, I live in Ludington, Michigan. This is the view I have of Lake Michigan from my senior apartment window.


 * It so happens that Parks marriage to the dancer happened July 18, 1887. See left sheet 3/4 down page.
 * in Grand Haven (Michigan), just directly across Lake Michigan from Milwaukee (day's boat trip).
 * Here is Ackerman, page 105 reference.
 * Secret marriage initially, I am guessing. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Excellent sources, Doug. I have found that there are Plankinton Family Papers which would be useful.  Note Elizabeth has a diary of her European trip in 1879, which would probably be when she met Park (I saw another source saying they met in Florence, perhaps when Park was doing a bust of her father).  The sequence of events is becoming much clearer.  EdChem (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As you can see in Park's 1872 passport,
 * he says that he was born in Hebron, Connecticut. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Mel

 * The state of Michigan has a sophisticated ILL system called Michigan eLibrary. Basically what that means is that any book in any library in Michigan I can borrow through ILL. That is potentially some hundreds of thousands of books, since there are hundreds of libraries in the system plus many Colleges and Universities. Those are my pictures in the above article of books I have borrowed from time to time to create articles. The first picture of January 2017 are books I used for these 3 articles we just worked on (besides Google Books). It turns out that over the last 10 years 98% of all the articles I have ever created turned into a Did You Know. I have been the co-creator on some other articles and is the reason why my DYK list is more than the articles I created.
 * These are Mel books I now have on my table,
 * next to my desk of 3 PCs.
 * I am also presently working on upgrading my article I created on Franklin's electrostatic machine to GA status and is the reason some are related Franklin books in the list. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I like the way you operate and think = perhaps someday we can do some more Did You Know articles together. My Modus operandi is that I normally write up a completed draft article offline FIRST. That way there is no DYK clock involved and I can take weeks to research and work it out = AND order ILL books! Do you have the FREE Newspaper.com subscription from Wikipedia Library? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Doug, I'm glad things have gone well, even despite the time challenges. I prefer some more planned work, myself, but sometimes an opportunity for a hook change or an extra link comes by, and the outcome can be good.  I'm happy to collaborate some more, working in user space is a less frantic way.  There are three possible articles that occur to me, and there is also a nice hook available linking them...
 * ... that William Plankinton, for whom William Plankinton House is named, commissioned the John Plankinton Statue from the sculptor who was his sister's ex-fiancé?
 * It could be a picture hook, either with a picture of the statue or of the William Plankinton house from the line drawing I'm about to add to the John Plankinton article from Buck (1886, p. 178), in jpeg and png formats. From the information I've added to the JP article, there is enough to write about the house (also demolished by Marquette University, along with the John Plankinton house.  In fact, it could be four articles:
 * ... that William Plankinton, for whom William Plankinton House (pictured adjacent to the John Plankinton House) is named, commissioned the memorial statue for his father from the sculptor who was his sister's ex-fiancé?
 * There are a bunch of little tweaks that would benefit the four articles we've already done, including:
 * Finding a reference to the birth and death of Hannah Plankinton, John's first daughter, as the present reference does not appear to me (from another web hosting of the article) to support it.
 * Establish date of death of John's first wife.
 * Can we use the images of the passport and church record as part of the references for the articles?
 * Add extra monuments to the Park article.
 * An article on the Plankinton House Hotel could be done, too... and on that idea, we could approach an editor good at architecture articles to add more the building articles.
 * Getting a newspapers.com account is a good idea, I should do that. EdChem (talk) 06:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have had the FREE historical Newspaper subscription since December 2015 and it expired after a year. They are working on a renewal, which should happen within a week. A recent DYK article where I used it was for William V. Thompson. Another FREE subscription I got from The Wikipedia Library was for High Beam Research. They have other FREE subscriptions available. You probably have access to JSTOR = I do not.
 * Question - IF you start a "draft" in your UserSpace can I then edit in it? We could then develop out these 3 or 4 articles you mention above. We could then make them real live official articles in a few weeks, when they are basically done. Presently I have in my man-cave with my PCs several books on Milwaukee. Likely there will be information on William in some of these. Will that work? If it does, start something with a sentence and I will jump in? I can notice when the red link turns blue. Deal??--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Basically, what I am saying above of a "draft" is NOT to start the actual article (so as not to start the DYK clock) and THEN we can have weeks to work on it BEFORE the "DYK clock" starts. I would say to start a "Draft" and work it out as complete to the end product as possible BEFORE making it live and official. Just let me know where the "Draft" articles are = I will jump in and help develop it out. It usually takes me 2-4 weeks to develop an article in draft BEFORE I make it live and official. That's the day the "DYK clock" starts = I make it a "new article" and a DYK nimination on the SAME day = 1 day then to the "DYK clock" so it is short enough by default and did NOT then pass the time period. ALL my "new articles" and DYK nominations are always the SAME day = I win by default!. Comments?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understood what you meant, just that we'll work in user space rather than draft space. EdChem (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , as I understand it, editing in someone else's user space is considered poor form unless it is justified by some policy, or it is by invitation... So, please, by all means, join me in editing these in my user space, or I'm equally comfortable if they are in yours... assuming, of course, that you choose to invite me in :). I'll have to message you when they are created, though, because the red links above won't go blue until the articles are moved from user to article space.  The only other problem (of which I am aware) is that the articles can only be made live by moving them into article space, and not by the cut-and-paste moves that some editors like to use.  The reason is that cut-and-paste is fine only if the text was written entirely the editor doing the move, which is impossible if more than one editor has contributed content.  Having said that, it's not an issue for me as I prefer to move into article space rather than cut-and-paste anyway.  :)
 * Re William, I hope your books can help, because his article is the only one of those four red links that I have not seen enough materials to be sure that there is enough to justify an article... but then, I wasn't looking for such materials, just thought about it when I saw the article on the demolition of his house.
 * Out of curiosity, do you like the image of the two house from 1886? Did you like the additions to the JP article on his son's house?  Does the idea for the possible four-article hook seem interesting / hooky to you?  EdChem (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me respond a little later on these points = my wife is cutting my hair and I will be offline for an hour. Maybe check your email tomorrow morning. On a quick glance this all looks good.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing
Harrias talk 12:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments at ANI
Hey EdChem, I wanted to follow up with you, as I fear you may have misunderstood some of what I said. First, I wasn't on TRM's talk page in my capacity as an admin—we've had plenty of run-ins, making me far too involved with regards to him. That feeds into #2: the secondary clause in my apology was to ensure no people dropping into the ANI discussion (especially ones that know the history between TRM and I) would mistakenly think that I was deliberately insulting him. You can see a second apology that makes that clearer here. Third, saying that I didn't have time to redact was not a justification for anything. It referred to a comment from TRM, which you can see here, that "By the way, you've got one chance to redact that bullshit "like a normal human being" or else it's ANI for the both of us. You choose." Ten minutes later, we were at ANI. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed, and thanks for stopping by. I accept that you didn't intend your post as coming from you an in admin capacity, and TRM may have understood that.  However, look at what you said and ask yourself how someone else would see:
 * ... but I will see you banned if you can't learn to interact like a normal human being ... – I agree that the part before this softens the comment, and also that there is some chance TRM may end up banned, which would be a loss (as you agree)... but it sounds very admin-y to me.
 * That's why I continually remind you of your arbitration case. – and who has the power to issue sanctions under an ArbCom case?
 * Feel free to reply, but I won't be. – sounds like a parent to a child saying I have made my decision, I have the power, whinge if you like but it won't change anything.
 * I share your goal and have myself been encouraging TRM to moderate his language. I suspect I'm one of the few who has commented positively to him in cases where his approach has been particularly good, just to say his effort is appreciated.
 * Regarding "the secondary clause ... mistakenly think that I was deliberately insulting him":
 * "Do note that I wasn't intending to insult you in any way, as I think the overall context of the post shows, but you have my sincere apologies in any case. It was ill-chosen phrasing. I trust that you will still see the overall thrust of my post." – This was reasonable, saying that the context does frame the comment but apologising and taking responsibility for "ill-chosen phrasing."
 * The impression I got from the retract / redact comment, and in the context of comments from others at ANI, led me to one interpretation of your actions. On re-reading the ANI, I see another is equally possible and I apologise for not considering it more carefully earlier.  My comments were consequently harsher than was justified, for which I also apologise, and I thank you for undertaking not to use a phrase like you did again.
 * Dealing with editors like TRM is an ongoing challenge, where the quality of contribution is high but the manner of comment is problematic. I don't like to see him post inappropriately or harshly, but I also don't like seeing others use the ArbCom case or his manner as an excuse to disregard or disrespect him.  I don't know what the "solution" might be, but I am convinced that a ban would be a bad outcome for TRM and for the project.  EdChem (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean now. Thank you for clarifying your thinking. On a solution, I don't have one either, but I firmly believe that should TRM continue down this road, banning him would be beneficial for the project as a whole. Much like the Malleus of old, TRM's content contributions are invaluable but his behavior contributes to Wikipedia's absolutely toxic reputation (for example). He can turn it around. Heck, I hope he turns it around. That's why I left that message on this talk page. But we'll see what he decides to do. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Elizabeth Plankinton House
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for John Plankinton
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Henry Park
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding just a specific small portion of this paragraph...
...the obvious question has to be: 'why ever not...?' Cheers, O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  16:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, O Fortua! EdChem (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Umm... not sure how I missed what was meant here. Having an off moment, I guess.  Oops.  And thanks!  EdChem (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

E-mail

 * , I'll respond to your emails shortly. Sorry for the delay.  EdChem (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
North America1000 11:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Commented, thanks for the reminder. EdChem (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!
--Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, I have acted on the instructions. :)  EdChem (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Newspapers.com and The Wikipedia Library
Your account is now ready happy editing!--Cameron11598 (Talk) 04:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hexamethylbenzene
Hello, EdChem - I did the best I could. I worked carefully and tried not to introduce any errors, but I hope you will read through the article and check my edits. I know enough science to know whether the sentences made sense, but I don't know enough about chemistry to check the science. I found a sentence that does not make sense. I guess we could say it is ungrammatical. I did not know how to fix it. I also have a few other questions.

1) In what looks like the second or third paragraph of the Hexamethylbenzene section, we read the following:


 * An early approach used a mixture of acetone and methanol vapours over an alumina catalyst at 400 °C reacts to form hexamethylbenzene.

This sentence is not completely clear. I tried to read it two ways:

(a) An early approach used a mixture of acetone and methanol vapours over an alumina catalyst at 400 °C.

This part is a complete sentence. The final phrase, "reacts to form hexamethylbenzene", does not seem to go (at least grammatically) with the rest of the sentence. If this is the way the sentence is to be read, something has to be done to connect this phrase to the earlier part of the sentence.

or:

(b) An early approach used a mixture of acetone

– that's one clause, albeit a short one – with another somewhat longer clause following "and":


 * and methanol vapours over an alumina catalyst at 400 °C reacts to form hexamethylbenzene.

If the sentence is to be read this way, we should add a comma after "a mixture of acetone" and change "reacts" to "react" since the subject is plural: "methanol vapours".

2) I'm not involved in the writing of articles, and I don't even review articles (I'm too busy editing at GOCE), but I wonder if the lead isn't a little long relative to the rest of the article. In particular, I wonder if you need to include the quote from Dean Tantillo in the lead since you have it later in the article.

3) I notice that you have linked terms several times. You might want to read WP:OVERLINKING if you haven't read it already. Generally, terms are linked once in the lead, or once in the lead and at first mention after the lead, and no more, but there is a section at WP:OVERLINKING that addresses links in technical articles, so you might want to read that. I know terms can be linked where an understanding of the word is essential to understanding a paragraph or section. I'll let you make this determination. Let me know if you need any help.

4) In the first paragraph in the section Hexamethylbenzene is the phrase "planar cyclic system". I wonder if either "planar" or "cyclic system", or both, could be linked. I found an article for "planar", Trigonal planar molecular geometry, but I don't know if that's the right one. Well, that's all. – Corinne (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

5) I just noticed that there is a backslash (\) before "Spectroscopic" in the Hexamethylbenzene section. Is that supposed to be there? – Corinne (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi,, and thanks for taking the time to copyedit the article. It's much appreciated.  I haven't yet looked properly at what you have changed as I have something of a personal crisis erupting over me at present, but I'll try to make time later today.  To respond in brief:
 * On point 1: The sentence you quote is ungrammatical, I agree. The section is discussing gas-phase approaches to preparing hexamethylbenzene.  The term "mixture" refers to the combination of acetone and methanol vapours, and the actual reaction of the two components takes place on the solid alumina surface.  Consequently, I think it is your (a) reading that matches my intent, and am thinking that a suitable change might be:
 * "An early approach to preparing hexamethylbenzene involved reacting a mixture of acetone and methanol vapours over an alumina catalyst at 400 °C."
 * On point 2, I'm happy to re-consider the lede. I did wonder about the duplication of the quote, but the unusual rearrangement to the pyramidal dication is both my original motivation for the expansion and the hook in the DYK nomination.  It is unusual and interesting from a chemical perspective and something that appears to violate a basic rule of chemistry taught in schools and universities.  Equally, one of the reasons I appreciate the GOCE contributions is to have errors  / issues noted by a fresh pair of eyes and an editor less close to the content.
 * On point 3: I am aware of WP:OVERLINKING and try to follow the link-in-lede-plus-first-appearance approach. Editing in stages and in collaboration with another editor  can produce inadvertent multiple links, which I've removed where I've noticed them.  As an example, methanol is not wikilinked in your point 1 as its first-appearance-link has already occurred by that point in the text. Is there a good tool for highlighting them?
 * On point 4: The phrase "planar cyclic system" refers to a ring of (in this case) six carbon atoms at the core of hexamethylbenzene which form a regular hexagon with all the atoms on the same plane. The geometry at each carbon is trigonal planar and thus fits the trigonal planar molecular geometry link you mention, but I would generally not provide a link in that way as many people struggle with the distinction between geometry about a single atom and geometry of the molecule as a whole or a substantial motif within it.  "Planar cyclic system" is intended to be read as referring to a single concept, a system which is simultaneously both cyclic and planar, and is one of the requirements for an aromatic compound.  This link points to the article on aromaticity and the specific section Aromaticity could be added as a link for planar cyclic system, though that could be argued to be overlinking.  Aromatic hydrocarbon is an alternative potential target which covers the planar cyclic requirement, though with the aromaticity article as its "main article" target.  Looking for other options, I note that a link to simple aromatic ring would be inappropriate as the presence of the methyl substituents means that hexamethylbenzene is not included within the definition that article provides, while basic aromatic ring refers to basicity of some nitrogen-containing aromatic heterocycles and so is also not applicable.  I could add a comment that the geometry about each individual carbon atom in the ring is trigonal planar and about each methyl carbon is tetrahedral.
 * On point 5: The "\" is most likely a typo from an attempt to type a pipe, "|". It is errant and can be terminated with extreme prejudice.  :)


 * Thanks for your work, Corinne, it is much appreciated. Do you have a view on the quality of the article vis-à-vis the GA criteria?  EdChem (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't get involved much in reviewing because I'm too busy editing at GOCE. Sometimes I read the comments at reviews; I'm curious to read what reviewers say about article's I've copy-edited, and other articles. I suppose you've already seen WP:Good article criteria. One way to see what reviewers might say is to read the GA reviews of articles that are similar to yours. You can find the review of an article that has been approved for GA status in a link at the top of the article's talk page. Just look at some chemistry articles, look on the talk page, and see if there is a link to a GA review. I have only extensively copy-edited about twenty science articles (so I remember some of the titles). One was Radiocarbon dating. I looked for a GA review on that article but couldn't find it. On the talk page of the article I only found a Peer review Peer review/Radiocarbon dating/archive1 and then an FAC review Featured article candidates/Radiocarbon dating/archive1, but you might be interested in reading those. Another was Oil shale in Estonia. Here's the link to the GA review: Talk:Oil shale in Estonia/GA1.

Regarding finding duplicate links, there are two ways to find them.

1) You probably have a "find" tool. I use Google Chrome, and the "Find" tool is in a drop-down menu when I click on three tiny vertical dots at the far top-right-hand corner of my screen. When I click on "Find", a horizontal search bar opens up. You can use this in regular article view or in edit mode. I usually use it in edit mode so that if I see a duplicate link, or a link at the wrong place in the article, I can change it immediately. Also, in edit mode, it is easier to see the double square brackets of the links at linked terms. All the instances, linked and unlinked, of the word or phrase that you typed in the horizontal bar will be highlighted. Just search through them, and you will see which ones are linked and which ones are not. Sometimes I find duplicate links. Sometimes I find that the term not linked at the first mention but at a later mention, so I fix that. (You do have WikEd enabled, don't you? If not, I highly recommend enabling it. It makes editing so much easier. It's in "Preferences", then "Gadgets", in the "Editing" section, then save.)

2) The second method is to use Visual Editor. If you haven't already enabled it, here's how you do it: Click "Preferences". Click on the "Editing" tab (not the "Gadgets" tab). Then, near the bottom, you will see a single line with "Editing mode". Next to that phrase is a white, horizontal bar. If you click on the little black triangle/arrow, you'll see four options. "Source editor" is the regular editor. That's what I use. With "Visual editor", you can choose whether you want only Visual editor or both Visual editor and source (regular) editor. Of course you can change these at any time. Just now, I selected "Show me both editor tabs". Then click "Save" at the bottom. Now, when you look at any article, you will see two editing tabs: "Edit source" is the regular editing tab (which is just "Edit" when you don't have Visual Editor enabled) and "Edit" is to use Visual Editor. If you click on "Edit", you'll see that it still looks like you're in regular article view mode, but there are editing tools along the top. (I haven't used Visual Editor to actually edit, and in fact, I don't usually have it enabled.) Look at the vertical menu at the left side, and under "Tools", you'll see "Highlight duplicate links". If you click that, you'll see all duplicate links are highlighted with a red line, or box, around them. The problem is, I haven't figured out how to make changes using Visual Editor, so I just use the other method I described above in (1). You might find it helpful to have two windows open, one with regular edit mode view ("Edit source" if you've got Visual editor enabled) and one with this view open. You'll see the duplicate links in red boxes in one window and you can make the changes in the other, regular edit mode window. Maybe Checkingfax can remind me how to remove unwanted duplicate links using Visual editor. I hope this helps. – Corinne (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, . If I recall correctly, you can highlight a link in VE, then delink it. Cheers! Update: I just checked, and after you highlight a wikilink there is a red circle with a red line on the bias and you can click on that circle and pick 'clear formatting' and poof it is delinked.  02:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have made these collective changes following your comments above. Any thoughts are welcome.  One thing I was puzzled by, wherever I have used the formulation "In Year XXXX, something ..." you have removed the comma after the year.  This produces sentences which look odd to me, but I could be violating a grammatical rule of which I am not aware.  For example, the article says that: "In 1929 Kathleen Lonsdale reported the crystal structure of hexamethylbenzene, demonstrating that the central ring is hexagonal ..." and it still appears to me that "In 1929 Kathleen Lonsdale reported the crystal structure of hexamethylbenzene, demonstrating ..." or "Kathleen Lonsdale reported the crystal structure of hexamethylbenzene in 1929, demonstrating ..." would be more usual constructions.  Would you please explain?  Thanks.  EdChem (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, EdChem - I do not have time to review your edits or read through the article right now, but I will do so later. Regarding the comma, or lack of it, after the initial prepositional phrase, "In 1929", both styles are acceptable as long as it is consistent throughout the article. I prefer not to use a comma after initial prepositional phrases, especially short ones (unless a parenthetical phrase enclosed in a pair of commas follows), but I know others prefer the comma. My preference is based on two things: one, I don't think native speakers actually pause there, and commas are used to indicate where a native speaker would naturally pause when reading aloud or speaking; also, commas are used to ensure clarity and avoid ambiguity, and if a comma is not needed for that, there is no reason to put one. The other reason is that I think the unnecessary use of commas is a bit old-fashioned. If you read a nineteenth-century novel, you will see many more commas than are used today. You might want to look at MOS:COMMA and Comma, specifically the paragraph that begins "Barbara Child" in Comma. However, if you prefer the look of the commas, I'd be glad to put them back in after the short initial time phrases. Just let me know. – Corinne (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Add 'Highlight duplicate links' link
Hi, EdChem (with courtesy ping to ). This user script will add the link to your sidebar permanently. Copy it to your clipboard, then paste it here (on a new line), save it, and purge the page. You may have to purge your talk page (or any article page) too for it to show up:

1- Copy this: /* Puts a Highlight duplicate links link on left side of each page */

importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js'); // User:Ucucha/duplinks 2- Paste it here (edit the page). 3- Save the edit. 4- Purge the page. 5- Purge your Talk page, or any article page. My favorite way for efficiency to check excessive duplicate links and unlink them is with AutoWikiBrowser. Cheers! 02:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the advice. I've made the change as suggested.  Is there a similar tool to look for dab links?  I note that you mention AWB and  mentions WikiEd. I've stayed away from VE and the auto tools like Twinkle, partly as I know what I am doing manually, partly as I tend towards inertia on the unfamiliar, and partly as vandal fighting and AfD nominations, etc, are not my typical activities.  I do find having DYKcheck on my tools at left is helpful, though.  EdChem (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 *  Thank you for all this information. I just looked at the page to which you provided a link for AWB and started to read it. Can you explain these two sentences for me?


 * 1) In the (2) Download section: "If you want to run the latest SVN version, see Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Sources." What does "run the latest SVN version" mean? Do I need to do that?


 * 2) In the "Running under Windows" section: "AWB comes in a zip file and it is recommended that it be unzipped to a new directory, rather than running, for example, straight from the desktop."


 * I have a vague idea of what a zip file is, but what exactly does "unzipped to a new directory" mean? What does it mean to unzip a zip file? Does it mean just to open it? Also, what is "a (new) directory"? I see that later it says, "If you're unsure, unzip AWB to somewhere on the machine's C:\ drive, for example within 'Downloads'." I think I can find the C:\ drive, but is that the best place to "unzip" the zip file, or is there another place? – Corinne (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Not sure what an SVN version is. I would download the latest release version.


 * After starting the download process, but before the save, click on 'new folder' which will create a new folder. Open that folder, then save the download file.


 * Go into the new folder and right-click on the AWB file and extract it.


 * Then go to the folder where the extracted files are, right-click on the program file and send a shortcut to the desktop.


 * Going forward, you will use the desktop shortcut to open AWB. Be sure to login after launching. Cheers!  02:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, EdChem. See if Dab solver by works for you. Cheers!    03:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Ahmad Hashim Abd al-Isawi
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 12:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Hexamethylbenzene
Mifter (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Trifluoroperacetic acid
Mifter (talk) 00:04, 27 February 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017 WikiCup newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
 * 🇪🇺 Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
 * 🇯🇵 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
 * Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

quoted your comments re fairness of DR processes
I have quoted your comments at my TBAN closure event a while back, at ANI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_logged-out_editing_to_evade_topic_ban I am slow to notify you as I was a bit unsure as to whether it was appropriate or not. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion
As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

DYK for John Plankinton statue
Mifter (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for William Plankinton Mansion
Mifter (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for William Plankinton
Mifter (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
North America1000 07:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
North America1000 08:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello
Hey EdChem, I noticed that you haven't edited in over a month. I hope everything is okay with you! Cheers -- Imminent 77   (talk)  20:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for stopping by. I've had more than my share of off-wiki issues and don't know what my immediate future holds, but I do appreciate that you visited to check on me, your kindness is appreciated.  :)  EdChem (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

re: Request assistance - polish language sources in a DYK nomination
I can confirm the Alt2 hook ref is correct, I didn't see any other issues. Cheers! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks,, I'm glad that you could provide a comment as a native speaker of Polish. :)  Regards, EdChem (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship
Re: "Please can we keep this a discussion and avoid arguing and posts which degenerate towards fights" The discussion started as a fight. It started with some bad faith assumptions and attacks on the 'crats, doomsday predictions, and threats of future manipulation. That's about as bad as a discussion can start. I don't feel regret at calling those three out on it in the same language.--v/r - TP 02:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , I started the WT:RfA thread titled "RfA post GoldenRing" in which I made the comment which you quote in collapsing an increasingly heated exchange. I do not believe I started it as a fight, that I made bad-faith assumptions, attacked the 'crats, made doomsday predictions, or threatened anything, which I ask you to acknowledge.  I explained how I saw WJBscribe's comment and asked that I be corrected if my interpretation was seen as unreasonable and sought input about possible consequences for future RfAs.  It was forward-looking and not meant as another discussion on the 'crat decision on GR or in the early decision on Godsy.  I am disappointed that you and others imported the tone and aggression of the preceding GR v Godsy CratChat thread into the separate (though related) discussion which I sought to initiate.  A discussion need not become an argument or a fight, and I am saddened that you did not see my thread and posting as an invitation to a discussion but rather as an opportunity to continue a conflict.  EdChem (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My comment on your talk page was mistaken. I didn't mean the thread that you started, but rather the thread above it.  I'm sorry if I implied you started the fight, that was wrong.  Although, while your effort was a good one, I couldn't imagine four equal signs walling off the heat.--v/r - TP 03:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for acknowledging your mistake,, it is appreciated. I did try to start the discussion with a better tone and direction and asked for civility, so I did try more than just four equal signs, but you are correct that I was unsuccessful in "walling off the heat."
 * On a related matter, may I suggest to you that your question at Dane's RfA is an unhelpful continuation of the fight and raises the difficult issue of what is an attempt to "manipulating the result"? Is a candidate following advice to only start an RfA when s/he has a week with good availability an attempt at manipulation or just common sense for anyone contemplating an RfA?  What about avoiding conflict for a month before, or !voting in AfDs to increase participation or percentage agreement, or pushing through a couple of DYKs as evidence of audited content contribution?  If a candidate seeks opinions off-wiki from a couple of respected Wikipedians, must that be disclosed as a potential form of coaching?  What about unsuccessful requests to be nominated, or a nominator's input on the three standard questions - coaching?  manipulation?  both?
 * I recognise that you believe that you have a right to know if a candidate has been advised by, but you did not ask that direct question, instead fishing for the answer with a broad question that asked if the candidate had attempted to manipulate the RfA. That is not fair to , in my opinion, and does not present yourself in a positive light either.  If Rob being connected to a candidacy in some way causes you to look more closely, then so be it, but please remember that it is only fair to assess Dane based on his actions and record.  Taking a position that Rob having offered advice taints a candidacy beyond redemption would look to me like advancing a conflict with Rob rather than providing a fair and reasonable assessment of any RfA candidate, which I would argue would be a grounds for opposition which would deserve little weight.  EdChem (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to drag anything on, but I'm not sure what you see as manipulation in my comment, TParis. This isn't me being facetious; I think we've had a miscommunication along those lines somewhere. I'm not trying to give some sneaky advice to a candidate to trick the community. I'm trying to advise certain candidates what type of record passes at RfA. This is advice very similar to what exists on-wiki, except mine is more up-to-date (in my opinion). It's not about deceiving the community; it's about taking a clueful editor and encouraging them to do the things the community would like to see in potential admins. That's a good thing, in my book. It means more candidates will come about which the community agrees will be good admins. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @EdChem, no, I do not. Knowing if someone was taught how to pass an RfA is important to knowing whether we are evaluating them or evaluating their coach.  @BU Rob13, I see your olive branch to reach out but I still firmly disagree.  Coaching an admit candidate to do or not do certain things which is opposed to their natural inclination is manipulation.  Candidates should not act differently to pass the mop than they would with the mop.  It presents an untrue view of their personality and habits for the community to judge.  Encouraging a candidate to perform certain tasks or avoid certain areas that they would otherwise have done the opposite is manipulating RfA.  Especially if done in private.--v/r - TP 12:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * First, I don't think telling them to edit in different ways is giving a view other than what they'd do with the mop. For instance, I avoided ANI for a long time before my RfA at the advice of someone else, and so I developed into an editor who avoids ANI "for real". It shaped my development rather than being some type of facade. I would never tell an editor to lie at RfA, so my advice would never include telling them to avoid one area, not mention it at RfA, and then go nuts there afterwards. I would tell them that maybe they should develop themselves as a candidate doing less controversial things, which they should continue after getting the mop (and gradually expand, possibly, as all admins do - the things I do as an admin today are very different than what I did when elected just due to changing interests). Second, I think in the absence of encouraging candidates to develop in the "right" way to pass RfA, we'd have very few new admins. There aren't that many people who genuinely want to be content creators, close discussions, handle niche areas, handle administrative backlogs, fight vandalism, participate at AfD, etc etc all at once. Encouragement to develop in different ways is all over the RFA advice page and different candidate criteria pages. Lastly, just to explain why I give advice in private, I do so because there's at least one group of editors I know of that would oppose any candidate I put up because of a very trivial content disagreement that we had in the past. I won't name names, but see the oppose section of my RfA. I don't want my name to bring ~5 opposes upon a candidate totally unrelated to their qualifications. That wouldn't be fair to the candidate. ~ Rob 13 Talk 22:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Don Benton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Environment Protection Agency. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed, I meant the United States Environmental Protection Agency. EdChem (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Henry Ludington
Henry is the father of Lewis Ludington (another article I created). I just did a major expansion and will be nominating Henry tomorrow for DYK. Can you look over for possible tweaks. The hook will have something to do with his involvement with the first secret service and George Washington. See quotes in the references. Thanks for any help you can provide.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Environmental Justice course discussion
Hi! Thanks again for your input on whether or not I (and students) should be sanctioned. You suggested we wait until June to engage, which is fine with me, but wanted to ping you to get the process started in any case. I've created a page for that purpose, but would appreciate you're adding whatever flags one might to restrict the conversation per your suggestion. Also flagging and  and  for their participation when the time is ripe... Looking forward to the discussion and learning more about how to constructively make a difference in Wikipedia! EJustice (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 WikiCup newsletter
The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
 * 🇯🇵 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
 * Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
 * Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)