User talk:EdChem/Archive 5

FA congrats
Exemplary work on rhodocene—well done. As you've seen, the experience of bringing such topics through FAC is quite a challenge, but I like to think the article emerges from the other end of the tunnel much improved. Hopefully you found the process redeeming and hopefully we will see more of your work there in the future. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  05:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it was certainly an interesting experience. Two questions, if I may:
 * Was the experience of the rhodocene article 'typical'?
 * Is the FAC community open to feedback / suggestions from an FA-newbie?
 * I am glad the article got there in the end. :)  EdChem (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ironically, the review you got is more typical of two years ago, when there were more active reviewers and you could usually plan for some non-specialist reviews of prose, MoS, etc, at at least 1 or 2 reviews from those familiar with the subject matter. I was actually very happy that we didn't have to go begging for reviews from a chemistry person. Overall, I'd say it's typical for such a topic, with the exception of some of the meta-discussion about the importance of the topic. The experience also differs vastly by subject matter.
 * The FAC community is always open to feedback, and we're especially receptive to feedback from authors in rather neglected topic areas. Just visit WP:FA and compare the number of chemistry articles to most other areas, such Warfare—the MILHIST people are quite prolific. Please share your thoughts at WT:FAC. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  13:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the barnstar and congrats again. My experience is that getting a similar article (say Ferrocene or any orgnometallic compound really) to FA should be easier because you now have a model to follow (and one to point to in FAC as well - "Well, the FA Rhodocene does it this way"). Ruhrfisch  &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations from me, too. And thanks again for the barnstar! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Peter Maitlis
r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC) 06:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Ed, I was about to ask you to check it! Tony  (talk)  06:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem - thanks for choosing to highlight it in the F & A section. :)  EdChem (talk) 06:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

docosanedioic acid
i hope you can help i gained the chemical's properties from lookchem and have done some work reseaching from other websites please provide the discoverer of the chemical and it's history since i have found contradictory information. thankyou Jasonwithey (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hang in there, man.
1. Wow. I didn't realize there was so much controversy on the thing and that I was mixed into it. Didn't have the page on watch. Sorry for all that. Even my comment at the technical article guideline was before I realized the full kerfuffledness. Now, I'm feeling guilty.

2. I agreed with several of your comments at FAC about the process. Very thoughtful to call out that the head editor (I sorta think of the delegates that way) ought to announce themseleves and take a little more role in the process. there are also some things that are not really consistent (they say it's not a "vote" but then it seems informally, you need three supports). that stuff should be clarified. and hopefully led more to a direction of head editor judging and less of voting. Unfortunately, I think there is some tendancy to think of the RFA process as the norm. Probably can't make it truly like a journal, but the more like one and less like RFA, the better. I bet we're in broad agreement on the observations and even the inferences wrt that!

3. Colin and Maseem (or whatever) are smart guys and tehcnically trained and I hope being nice to you. Sandy can be a little direct. And me...well I'm an old permabannee. Don't take me as an example of anything. Unless you'd like to be wikibanned. :-)

4. Let's do a page together some time. We might each need a little RL break, but let's do it some time. Could be fun to somehow brainstorm a topic that both of us would enjoy. You could list 5 topics, I could list 5, we could kinda compare and contrast and see if any joint ideas came up or new ones generated.TCO (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * TCO, I was not offended by your comments and recognise you aren't responsible for the unfortunate timing. I appreciate you stopping by to talk to me directly, that is a classy thing to do.  As for individual personalities, it is inevitable that I have formed impressions that will influence my further interactions, but I hope to be able to stay professional and collegial even with those with whom I disagree.  I'm willing to collaborate at some point in the future, but I agree that a little break is needed.  I have had two pieces of cancer news recently, so the timing of pretty much eveyrthing is bad all-around.  EdChem (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks, Ruhrfisch, much appreciated. EdChem (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Rhodocene (yeah, sorry if it keeps coming to you...)
But I actually want to help. I was going to have a go at doing some copyediting in the references (mainly hyphenating ISBNs, removing publisher links and some duplicate journal links, this stuff is hardly ever thoroughly examined at FAC), when I realized the reference are... hard to locate. Would you oppose if I switched the article to List-defined references? While LDR are slightly less practical during active editing of the article (I generally do the switch after I'm done with writing myself), I've found they can make latter copyediting (or things like copy-pasting the reference) much easier. I can still do editing as is, but since the references definitely do not appear in the text in the same order as in the references section, it does complicate things.

Although I favor not abbreviating them myself (especially for journals without articles: redlinks do not belong in a references section), I won't expand journal abbreviations unless you tell me you have no problem with it. Circéus (talk)


 * Hi Circeus. I don't own the article so you are free to edit as you choose.  List-defined references seem like a reasonable idea (I haven't used them before).  I think duplicate journal links are appropriate - if I look at reference 55 (say) and want to look at the journal's article, I see no reason to have to look for an earlier occurrance in the ref list for the link.  Whether or not ISBNs are hyphenated or publishers are wikilinked don't interest me, so long as things are consistent.  As for abbreviating journals, the key issue is again consistency but also accuracy.  My preference is for the format I used, but if some obscure bit of MoS dictates something then I'm not going to fight about it.  EdChem (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Journal abbreviations are left to the writer's discretion. WP:PLANTS has moved away from them, but they are are still used by WP:MED, so I'll leave it to your call. Personally I feel it's a bit jargon-y, and some may be counterintuitive to someone not accustomed to the domain. I'll respect your wish. As to the journal links, it turns out WP:REPEATLINK (a section in MOS:LINKS) agrees that in lists and tables, entries should be treated separately, so I'm put in my place regarding that and you know where to point people XD. I'll just try to use the same target everywhere (some of them use a redirects and other not, creating different colors for the same link...). Circéus (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info on the repeatlinks, but I am reluctant to throw around too many abbreviations / wikilinks on "policy" unless I am really really sure. I got rhodocene to FA status and then got abused because I allegedly violated the WP:NOT policy (a pillar), which has given me a new perspective on the consequences that can follow from throwing policy links around.  Not saying you are doing anything wrong, I hasten to add, just explaining.  To be honest, I am really having doubts at the moment that wikipedia is worth the effort.  :(  EdChem (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was mostly commenting about how there is a MoS guideline discussing that, since I have up to now offered my arguments, but assumed it to fall within the "don't change styling willy-nilly" aspect of the manual of style.
 * I see a brief discussion regarding the technical level of the article (which is a perennial issue at FAC and across the project. It shows up in maths and physics a lot, but also in areas like morphology and medicine.), but I'm not sure what you refer to otherwise. I'm willing to discuss it with you. I don't usually do that, but I'm intrigued by your experience, and we could always use more people who are specialists at Wikipedia. If it's any consolation, a lot of people (and even project) stop shy of FAC because the reviewers are often... well, kind of anal. There is a lot of focus on MoS details (because that's easy to check), but less that the references are formatted adequately and consistently, or even that the article doesn't accidentally contradict itself. In general, few reviewers will review the article as readers (they do so as FAC-"trawling" editors), because that takes so much time (which is why the issues with the lead surfaced afterward). Entoloma sinuatum also had an entire section rewritten (by me, as it happens) right after getting FA status.
 * If you decide to dip your toes in the FAC "shark pool" again, give me a ring. I'll be happy to help. Circéus (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The FAC itself was ok, the problems came afterwards - look at WT:FAC and WT:MTAA if you are interested. Wikipedia as a whole does not value expertise, but I was surprised that the talk:FAC community was as it is. As for your changes to rhodocene, I notice it now has 58 references but it did have 60.  I saw the cobaltocenium duplication (good catch) but I can't tell what other reference has gone or why.  Would you please point out which other one has gone?  Thanks.  EdChem (talk) 12:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm familiar with it, it's standard-fare technical articles debate. This issue is (as I mentioned above) a hard-to-solve conundrum, one which we might never be able to fully solve to everyone's satisfaction. Any such situation is bound to cause high-running emotions and somewhat extreme positions to rise, unfortunately, and FAC is an easy to spot flash point of those. I can assure you the community as a whole appreciates expert input. It's mostly what to do with the input once it's there that tends to divide people (that's not even counting the original research issues that tend to show up a lot in expert input, but you've clearly got a good grip on that aspect of Wikipedia writing).
 * The other reference was ref #28, Leigh (2002), where you were citing two page ranges that could be combined (citing multiple chapters of a book alway make things a bit complicated...). On having a closer look, I should probably adjust have adjusted it slightly, but the basic idea is, I think, still sound.
 * While I was at it, I also reordered the elements in refs so they are roughly in the order they appear when displayed. A trick to keep them similarly "entered" (you had mixed "first/last" and "author") is to keep a stash of templates with the parameters you use, mine is at User:Circeus/oddities, for example. Circéus (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Particle theory of matter
The reference you gave to google books doesn't even show me the front cover. I really would like to read some citation for what people think the article particle is supposed to be about. Thanks Dmcq (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied at the AfD. EdChem (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think google must sometimes stop viewing from different regions for copyright reasons and has done that to me in this case. I didn't find anything about it on their site but it's the only explanation I can think of. Dmcq (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter
So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to (first, with 487 points) and  (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. 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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on March 28, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/March 28, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director,. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch * ۩ ۞ 03:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 

Rhodocene is a chemical compound with the formula Rh(C5H5)2. Each molecule contains an atom of rhodium bound between two planar systems of five carbon atoms known as cyclopentadienyl rings in a sandwich arrangement. It is an organometallic compound as it has covalent rhodium–carbon bonds. Biomedical researchers have examined the applications of rhodium compounds and their derivatives in medicine and reported one potential application for a rhodocene derivative as a radiopharmaceutical to treat small cancers. Rhodocene derivatives are also used to synthesise linked metallocenes so that metal–metal interactions can be studied; potential applications of these derivatives include molecular electronics and research into the mechanisms of catalysis. The value of rhodocenes tend to be in the insights they provide into the bonding and dynamics of novel chemical systems, rather than their direct use in applications. (more...)

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is with 231 points, who leads Pool H.  (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see WikiCup/Scoring.

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 three 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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter
Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to and  who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. 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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Synthesis of 1-cobaltocenyl-1'-rhodocenylferrocene cation.PNG listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Synthesis of 1-cobaltocenyl-1'-rhodocenylferrocene cation.PNG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Bi- and ter-metallocenes containing rhodocenyl groups.PNG listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bi- and ter-metallocenes containing rhodocenyl groups.PNG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

how do you extract sulfur from diallyl disulfide?
hello EdChem can you please help me with the following as there is nothing in any literature how can Hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide be produced from diallyl disulfide? what would happen if copper were reacted with diallyl disulfide? or is there an easy route from isothiocyanate to get sulfur?

I thankyou for any assistance you can give and I know we can erase ignorance.

yours faithfully jason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonwithey (talk • contribs) 08:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 May newsletter
We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by, and  respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.

A running total of claims can be seen here. 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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Image Deletion
A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 June newsletter
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by, claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by , who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by, who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank and  for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are (Pool A, 189 points) and  (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from ) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from ). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!

There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 11:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

can you help do you know the cas no. for 3-hydroxy propylene note this chemical is not 3-hydroxy propylene oxide cas no.556-52-5 nor is it allyl alcohol

many thanks jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonwithey (talk • contribs) 18:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

please ignore my last message my foolish error sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonwithey (talk • contribs) 19:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:


 * , Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
 * , Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
 * , Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
 * , the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
 * , the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists,, , , , , and. Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate. The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.

A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 September newsletter
We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by, and , all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.

If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 12:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 October newsletter
The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is, who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009) and  (2010). The final standings were as follows:



Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.


 * The Featured Article Award:, for his performance in round 2. matched the score, but Casliber won the tiebreaker.
 * The Good Article Award:, for his performance in round 4.
 * The Featured List Award:, for his performance in round 4. matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
 * The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics):, for his performance in round 3.
 * The Did You Know Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The In the News Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews):, for his performance in round 3.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiCup participation


It was good to have you on board this time around- we hope you enjoyed the competition! In case you are interested, signups for next year are open. Thanks, J Milburn and The ed17 20:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

All files in category Unclassified Chemical Structures listed for deletion
One or more of the files that you uploaded or altered has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it/them not being deleted. Thank you.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of MGA73 (talk) at 17:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

Your comments at the amendment discussion (ie follow up to the Abortion Arb.)
Hi, we have not met before to my recollection. I wanted to say I largely agree with your comments at the Amendment discussion, though I am not familiar with the Yog*urt debate you mentioned. I agree with your point about the way page protection is slapped on at times, when all that was needed was to close a section or discussion. I tried to make that point by talking about facilitative measures as versus punitive, protective, or pre-emptive measures. Admittedly being facilitative takes more effort and thought. Probably my perception is skewed through the articles I have worked on, and there are many Admin who don't rush to protect articles without good reason, but though the Abortion article is the perhaps the most contentious article I have worked on I am stunned how three year long semi-protection on any topic could get off the ground at an Arbcom case. Admittedly I did not give the procedings my full attention. But at the same time I was expecting the Arbitrators to think through the ramifications of the remedies proposed. I had no idea there was 1500+ articles in that topic myself. DMSBel (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for stopping by, it's nice to hear that someone is reading my comments, let alone largely agreeing with them! :) The Yog*urt debate, FYI, was one of the lamest debates I have seen, a debate over whether or not the article should be titled "Yogurt" or "Yoghurt" which became a huge ANI debate.  As for the abortion decision re page protection, I understand ArbCom had evidence of posts that revealed personal information (including addresses) of named individuals, potentially putting their lives in danger, so I concur with them that an agressive approach to semi-protection may be needed.  It's just a pity they did a poor job of explaining their reasoning in the decision, an unfortunately common failing in ArbCom and other wiki decision making processes.  EdChem (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I quoted you in this rfc
I took the liberty to use a quote of yours to put you down in support of the original wording at this new rfc section so you didn't have to repeat yourself. Feel free to delete/change or whatever as appropriate... they are your words. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Born2cycle, firstly thanks for the notification. I see that there has been a minor wiki-war over this, which strikes me as a waste of time, but anyway...  Secondly, my preference would have been to include with the quote the relevant diff so that others could read the rationale that went with my comment because I offered reasoning and examples and not just an opinion.  Thirdly, might I suggest that you take a step back and think whether some of the posts you are making are chasing things that really matter that much?  The goal is to get the recognisability criterion for article titles to include a clause about some degree of familiarity with the area, and much of the surrounding debate is tangential to that goal.  Just because others are behaving poorly and even if you are 100% correct, the question I would urge you to consider is whether pursuing your current strategy is the best way to achieve your goals.  Kind Regards, EdChem (talk) 11:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I quoted you in this rfc
I took the liberty to use a quote of yours to put you down in support of the original wording at this new rfc section so you didn't have to repeat yourself. Feel free to delete/change or whatever as appropriate... they are your words. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Born2cycle, firstly thanks for the notification. I see that there has been a minor wiki-war over this, which strikes me as a waste of time, but anyway...  Secondly, my preference would have been to include with the quote the relevant diff so that others could read the rationale that went with my comment because I offered reasoning and examples and not just an opinion.  Thirdly, might I suggest that you take a step back and think whether some of the posts you are making are chasing things that really matter that much?  The goal is to get the recognisability criterion for article titles to include a clause about some degree of familiarity with the area, and much of the surrounding debate is tangential to that goal.  Just because others are behaving poorly and even if you are 100% correct, the question I would urge you to consider is whether pursuing your current strategy is the best way to achieve your goals.  Kind Regards, EdChem (talk) 11:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

POV poll
Is the poll, like I’ve just started on Talk:Cold fusion, an OK thing to do given that ArbCom has been involved in this article? Greg L (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Greg, you can do anything on a page covered by ArbCom discretionary sanctions that is compliant with policy. Assessing consensus with the aid of a poll is fine, recognising though that it is not a vote.  I can see that there has been considerable activity on the CF page, but to be honest I haven't been paying attention.  Somehow Christmas and POV-debates don't feel like they fit well together, but I will return to the article in a few days.  In the short term, be aware that there have been debates over POV tags before (see the talk page archives), as well as debates about lenr-canr.org, the New Energy Times, the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, what individual research groups have been doing (SPAWAR, etc) - in fact, aside from the MIT "course" I don't recall anything new.  Accusations and counter-claims about sock puppets are also not new.  Certainly an FAQ is needed, though it would open a new set of fights about what it should contain.  EdChem (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I finally realized that you are exceedingly wise and know when to give up. I’m out of there. What a crazy-crap article… 02:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

edit References to Pseudoscience Should Be Moved to Historical Footnotes
Query to the scientific community:

To the Directors of Physics Departments,

LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and Widom Larson Theory, aka Condensed Matter Nuclear, historically misnamed "Cold Fusion"

1) Is this science or pathological science? 2) Do you offer a class in this discipline? If so, please provide information. 3) Are you developing a curriculum of this science? If so, when will you offer it? 4) What peer review journals do you source in this field?

EdChem, P>S> 1) Any suggestions before I move forward with this? 2) Is this direction of query able to yield opinions the Wikipedia forum on Cold Fusion may value?

Thank you for your time,

Gregory Goble --Gregory Goble (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Gregory, I think this approach is unlikely to yield much of value, but you are of course welcome to try and see what responses you get. I think the questions are somwehat slanted, too, as both Q2 and Q3 appear to expect a positive response - they would be more balanced if they covered the "if not, why not" side. With respect to Q4, if you are fishing to rehabilitate JCMNS then what you really need is for the journal to be recognised by ISI and be cited in mainstream respected journals.  Wikipedia does not lead opinion, it follows what is written in reliable sources, and I doubt unpublished comments from a self-selected group of physics departments of their opinions is going to be influential.  I am certain I could list important topics that are not covered in undergraduate coursework without being considered unreliable, they are simply topics at the cutting edge of science or where only graduate students have the necessary background to systematically study.  Thus, I think the underlying assumption of your survey is flawed.  PS: Posting a phone number and email address on-wiki is a bad idea.  EdChem (talk) 06:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 WikiCup
Hi! As you've previously expressed interest in the competition, I'm just letting you know that the 2012 WikiCup is due to start in less than 24 hours. Signups are open, and will remain so for a few weeks after the beginning of the competition. The competition itself will follow basically the same format as last year, with a few small tweaks to point costs to reflect the opinions of the community. If you're interested in taking part, you're more than welcome, and if you know anyone who might be, please let them know too- the more the merrier! To join, simply add your name to WikiCup/2012 signups, and we will be in touch. Please feel free to direct any questions to me, or leave a note on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! You are receiving this note as you are listed on WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. J Milburn (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Template
I like it, and like the way it is so flexible. I hope you are feeling better. I was going on wikibreak but got called back by the FAC hoorah and don't see any likelihood of getting to go soon now. I hope you are feeling better. --Wehwalt (talk) 05:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Wehwalt. I've seen the FAC mess but have been staying away from it, I just haven't felt up to wading in to a wiki-battle of that scale especially as I have mixed feelings on the subject.  EdChem (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

DNA structure image sequence
Hi, you asked about the DNA sequence in my animated DNA structure File:DNA orbit animated.gif. I believe the sequence is:
 * 5' GCGAAATTTGCG 3'

This should also be the sequence of the bDNA in my other DNA diagrams if you want to use any of those too. - Zephyris Talk 16:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Zephyris, that's the information I needed. :)  EdChem (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is, due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by, whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is, who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
 * was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
 * was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
 * was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
 * is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
 * was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
 * was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate
There is no "use" of molybdocene for anticancer work. There are papers on its behavior but there is not even close to being any use. It is misleading to suggest that the situation is otherwise. This is a compound of some historic value, but Harding's work - and I am sure she is a nice person and earnest - is not up there with the headline results that most organometallic chemists would point to, so the article's emphasis does not correlate with an objective analysis. This is the basis of what we call undue weight. Can't you help these groups enhance their reputations without using Wikipedia as a vehicle?--Smokefoot (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. I should have retitled the section when I borrowed the heading from titanocene dichloride, something like "Antitumour properties" might be more suitable.
 * 2. In case it isn't obvious, the article is a work in progress. I probably should have started it in user space where I wouldn't get criticised for starting where I did.  Of course more is needed like synthesis, and chemistry, and an infobox, etc.  Articles need not be complete within a few hours of creation.
 * 3. Do NOT ever accuse me of editing with an ulterior motive without evidence. I am not trying to enhance that group's reputation.  For the record, I am not a member of the group, not a friend or relative or partner of anyone in the group.  I have never cited myself on Wikipedia, nor acted with a conflict of interest, no matter what you have assumed.  I am not a colleague of Harding's nor of any group member.  If you wanted to inquire why I was working on this material, you could have just asked rather than assume that I was acting unethically or accuse me of inappropriate editing.  I am a professional.  I can deal with suggestions, or corrections of mistakes, but my integrity is not something you can impugn without just cause.
 * 4. *IF* I decided to start a biography on Harding then I'd need to address WP:ACADEMIC; until then, she herself is irrelevant.
 * 5. I know the whole primary / secondary issue is critically important to you but that doesn't mean I have to agree with your perspective 100%. For your information, I found the material on CB[7] as a host for the metallocene dichlorides while looking for secondary sources on molybdocene dichloride.  I added that book I found (Macrocycles: Construction, Chemistry and Nanotechnology Applications) as a reference but it was unclear on one point so I checked its primary sources - until then, I didn't know the work was from the Harding group.  Your assumption that my addition was of a friend's work was wrong, as was your assumption that I would simply revert you and edit war.  If I'd had enough info from the secondary source I would not have known whose work was reported by the book.  I still used the primary literature for the antitumour properties, but I admit that even that could be replaced with the Metals in Medicine book.  Further, Metals in Medicine mentions (with diagrams) the inclusion compound so I now have two secondary sources that mention this specific example.  Maybe you aren't always right about undue weight?
 * 6. Smokefoot, I don't want to fight with anyone. Especially at the moment (see top of talk).  Can't we behave like two professionals with good intentions and have conversations without unfounded assumptions?  I know you have contributed to Wikipedia extensively, I think I have made some valuable additions as well.  We both care about the encyclopedia.  Surely there is a way forward where we don't need to fight?
 * EdChem (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You were mentioned at;
Hi, just a note that, for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me, you were mentioned at User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Demiurge1000, I appreciate the notification. My first reaction was to laugh as the suggestion of my being a sock of Rlevse is absurdly ridiculous.  However, on reflection, I've decided to raise the issue with Kiefer as I think his comments are impolite, particularly the implication that I am not a decent person.  EdChem (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If I say that NYB is A, then there is no implication that you are not A, of course. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have replied at your talk page, but the way your comments are juxtaposed, suggesting possible misbehaviour / sock-puppetry on my part and praising others, I think that such an implication can be drawn. EdChem (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed. Thanks for the heads up. I would have expected Kiefer to have notified me himself when he suggested me as a sock, an allegation which I by the way find completely laughable. Manxruler (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)