User talk:EdChem/Archive 6

Cricket graphs
I had my problems by creating the graph as you did of Michael Clarke, with Excel 2007. How did you added the line showing his average, I only managed to round up with File:R Ashwin batting test.jpg? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extra999 (talk • contribs)
 * Right click on the plot area and select chart type from the menu - the type you want is "Line - Column" and its in the Custom Types. You can then add a second data series using the source data option from the menu when you right click on the ploit area.  The first series is the bar graph, the second series is the line graph.  I hope that helps.  :)  EdChem (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for help, I did it. But there seems to be some problems in uploading. -- Extra   999  (Contact me) 15:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. :)  I suggest that .png is a better format to use than .jpg and you can create it as follows: click on the chart area, press ctrl+c to copy it, then paste it into a suitable graphics program - I'm using photoshop but even microsoft paint would work - and save it in .png format.  Regards, EdChem (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As soon I uploaded the file with the png format, it was success. File:R_Ashwin_test_batting.PNG thanks -- Extra   999  (Contact me) 16:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. EdChem (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thxx for the note. I have posted at the help desk, but no one seems to know. -- Extra   999  (Contact me) 14:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Although, your size reduction seems to work :) -- Extra   999  (Contact me) 14:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think it is looking good. :)  EdChem (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can now say that, ready to roll :) -- Extra   999  (Contact me) 15:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)




 * Hello EdChem. Don't bother with Cork for now, there's far more important players that needs graphs, plus I've just read the average needs to be 30+, so don't waste your time with him. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that EdChem is one, but graphs needed to be done are many. -- Extra   999  (Contact me) 08:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Brilliant work putting the graphs back into articles, they've been sorely lacking for a long time. However, I was wondering if it was possible instead of creating two graphs (one for career average, the other for previous 10 average) to create one and have the two lines a contrasting colour. This would make it easier to see on the article and I presume (though I could be wrong) that it would be less work for you as it is only one file. But maybe I'm missing something and there's a reason you haven't done that. Tony2Times (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words – it is gratifying to hear that my work has been both noticed and appreciated. As to your question, I am sure that putting two lines on one graph is possible, but I have yet to figure out how.  When I tried adding another data series I got two sets of bars and one line, not the one set of bars and two lines that I had in mind.  Also, there were some concerns about using the moving average raised at WT:CRIC so I provided two versions so that other editors could choose which they preferred.  These are my reasons, though I readily admit they aren't particularly good ones.  If consensus at WT:CRIC was that a two line version was better then I'll keep trying to figure out how to achieve it.  EdChem (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Did not understand what Ed Chem is trying to tell, because I since I easily got the desired results. Although I also loved Tony's idea. -- Extra   999  (Contact me) 11:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I just figured out what I was doing wrong, so strike the "haven't figured out how" bit. Now I guess we want consensus on whether a combo graph is better...  EdChem (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Take it to WT:CRIC -- Extra   999  (Contact me) 12:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What about reviving our project, has been dormant for a while: WP:CRIC/GR -- Extra   999  (Contact me) 09:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Extra, yes I am coming back to it soon. If you aren't watching the Australia v India T20 match, you should be - India are playing brilliantly.  It's amazing how much the Indian team's fielding has improved since the test series ended, they have been playing extremely well.  EdChem (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Got to say that, looks like I missed the fielding, and I was thinking the same when seeing the cricinfo commentary live, was online during the Oz batting session, but I watched whole the Indian batting. India have just won, -- Extra   999  (Contact me) 12:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It has been a month now, almost. Restarting ... ? --Extra999 (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi
Hi thanks for notifying me. Anyway the situation seems to have cooled down even before I got to see it so. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Concerning my stuff


Concerning File:Three facts for trisecting angles.svg, it was so long ago the original is probably hopelessly lost. But if I find it, will let you know pronto.

dino (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter
Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was, again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was, thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were, , and. February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from. At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a 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 would 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 (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 March newsletter
We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! , of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's, thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's, who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to, whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to, who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a 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. 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 (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 April newsletter
Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's  coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.

65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both and, the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article,  earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by  to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank and, for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, 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. 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 (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 May newsletter
We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is, whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader,, is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by, our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user,, claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. 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. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

DNA nanotechnology back at FAC
I wanted to let you know that DNA nanotechnology is up for a second FAC. Your comments on the first FAC were very helpful, and I've made extensive upgrades to the article since then. I'm hoping that you'll revisit the article for this second FAC. Thanks! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 June newsletter
Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's, who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's, whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's, with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. 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. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 July newsletter
We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees  in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's  follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.

Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. 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. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 August newsletter
The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
 * 1) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
 * 2) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
 * 3) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
 * 4) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
 * 5) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
 * 6) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
 * 7) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
 * 8) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle:, , , , , , and. We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. 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. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 September newsletter


We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. currently leads, followed by, and. However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. 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. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 October newsletter
The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to, our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009),  (2010) and  (2011). Our 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 goes to, for four featured articles in the final round.
 * The good article award also goes to, for 19 good articles in the second round.
 * The list award goes to, for three featured lists in the final round.
 * The topic award goes to, for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
 * The did you know award goes to, for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
 * The news award goes to, for 10 in the news items in round 3.
 * The picture award goes to, for two featured pictures in round 2.
 * The reviewer award goes to both (14 reviews in round 1) and  (14 reviews in round 3).
 * Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to.

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My 76 Strat  (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metallocene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed, link should have pointed to valence (chemistry). EdChem (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Please
Kindly keep your opinion about me to yourself, you dont know me, or how intelligent I am. And yes, I am taking what you said as a personal attack. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This post follows on from my comment at WP:AN. Following advice from MBisanz, I am confident that my comments (particularly that the "path you appear to be on is not (in my opinion) a wise one, regardless of the merits of the dispute") were not a personal attack but were rather good advice which JonnyBonesJones unfortunately chose not to consider.  I have not further interacted with JBJ but have noted his two recent blocks for edit warring and his ongoing criticisms of other editors offering advice, and concluded that he is not at present open to considering external views; I conclude my decision to dis-engage was in my best interests.  :)  EdChem (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tantalum(V) ethoxide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ethyl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Link should point to the ethyl group page, now corrected. EdChem (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Zeitschrift für Naturforschung
Hi, actually, the literal translation of this title is "Journal for Nature Research" ("für" = for and "Forschung" = "research"), with "nature" interpreted in its broadest sense. "Nature Sciences" would be "Naturwissenschaften" in German. Just a pedantic note :-) --Randykitty (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem changing the translation to Journal for Nature Research, my German is terrible so I have to defer to the experience of others. EdChem (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

How is my edit "Pointy"?
Qwyrxian said on his page that it was ok to remove flags on the Formula One page because it violates MOS:FLAG. And you accuse me of being pointy? How about you read what he said on this page yourself? I used to his so people know why the flags were taken down, not to be pointy. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The list does not violate MOS:FLAG, as I have explained on the article's talk page.
 * Qwyrxian did not say what you are claiming, and even if he had, you remain responsible for your edits.
 * Your arguments in MMA areas are for inclusion of flags, yet you are removing them on the F1 article, accompanied by edit summaries suggesting your reason is because of what an admin has said, not because you are trying to improve encyclopaedic content. Further, your edit summaries suggest that you are not responsible for your edits, which is wrong.  This fits squarely within the area covered by WP:POINT.
 * You have suggested at the talk page that I am failing to assume good faith, but your actions indicate you are not seeking to improve encyclopaedic content. Your actions are disruptive, I am simply being honest in saying so.
 * You might have been on more solid ground until you reverted me... your first revert (the flag removal) could be defended as BOLD, and my revert followed the BRD cycle. I started a discussion and invited comment, and you have posted but instead of waiting for the discussion to continue and for consensus to develop, you have reverted again... that's the start of edit warring and you've been blocked for that twice recently.  Please stop being so combative and try a more discursive approach.
 * Please let's discuss article content on article talk pages so that other editors may participate more easily.
 * EdChem (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 1 Yes it does


 * 2 Oh yes he did


 * 3 I want flags on all articles, but it's against the rules in both cases, from what I heard.


 * 4 You are, and still are, how is following wikipedia's guidelines disruptive?


 * 5 I am not edit warring, and I am not being combative.


 * 6 I'm doing that right now.


 * JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * JonnyBonesJones, in this discussion at Qwyrxian's talk page I gave my opinion that "you are heading towards being blocked for disruptive editing" and you are currently blocked for 31 h for disruption and canvassing as part of an ANI discussion. I suggested that "your removal of the flags will not stand for F1 articles" and those changes have been reverted and you have been banned from altering flags on MMA or other articles for six months.  I am surprised that the ANI discussion has got to a proposed indefinite (not infinite) block so fast, but that is where you have been heading, as I have tried to suggest to you both at Qwyrxian's page and earlier when you accused me of making a personal attack.  You responded that you "disagree with everything [I] just said, and [you were choosing] to disregard everything [I] said in favor of wikipedia's policy and guidelines, which I am trying to follow to the letter".  I am all in favour of following policy and guidelines, but as the ANI discussion shows your interpretation of them is not consistent with community consensus.  I am not going to support an indefinite block because I am still willing to accept that you are well-intentioned.  However, to be an effective member of the community it is vital that you learn to listen and consider the views of others.  You need to consider that you might be incorrect in your interpretations at times.  You need to appreciate that collaborative editing within a consensus model means at times accepting outcomes with which you disagree.  I can respect your view that flags should be included with MMA articles - I certainly included them when I edited in that area, but I also recognise that consensus now seems to be that they should be removed per MOS:FLAG.  You don't have to agree with that consensus, you are free to try to persuade others that your view is preferable; but, you do have to abide by the consensus until it changes.  Disrupting coverage of other sports to illustrate your concerns is never acceptable and on a practical level it is counter-productive as it obscures your concerns behind behavioural misconduct.  I know you have little regard for my views, which I accept, and so you may choose to continue disregarding what I say.  You have that right.  Be aware, however, that your current situation is akin to driving towards a brick wall... you can keep going and hit the wall (get blocked indefinitely) or you can change direction.  I don't know how far away from the wall you are, but I do know it's getting closer.  The choice, as always, is yours.  EdChem (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
I know, I know ... I still owe you feedback on Talk:Periodic table! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Sandy, and Happy New Year to you too! I'm glad you decided to un-retire, WP does have more than its share of idiocy, but it will never improve by losing content contributors.  I'll have a look at the periodic table article once you've had time to comment, but please don't feel pressured - I have limited time right now anyway, and am wanting to finish with the Conant FAC next.  Regards, EdChem (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Please follow WP:SECONDARY
Before we had a discussion about your over-referencing your Australian colleagues on narrow topics, which I viewed as WP:UNDUE. Now you seem to be on jag about citing lots of primary references for Ta(OEt)5. Are you planning to write a review? Which of the 1198 reports (CAS info from today) on Ta(OEt)5 are you going to cite? On what basis are you citing? This very issue led to the explicit and long standing guideline for WP:SECONDARY. I think that when it comes to applications, this dictum becomes especially important because many young readers actually believe primary reference claiming something is useful, whereas experienced chemists know that only a tiny fraction of such claims are of any use. So I hope you can refocus your considerable talents and energies to more general themes. If you are looking for applied topics to write about, then I recommend consulting Ullmann's Encyclopedia or Kirk-Othmer's Encyclopedia. If you do not have access to these sources, then find a monograph or big time review that gives an overview. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I am not planning to write a review. I looked to sources addressing the compound that were the most cited, but I only chose those that were relevant to the applications already established by the secondary sources.  For example, there is literature addressing tantalum(V) ethoxide as a catalyst for hydrogen peroxide oxidation of sulfides, but I did not add it because a couple of papers does not make for an application.  I get that you don't like my work, but please do me the courtesy of recognising that I am an experienced chemist and not just a "young reader".  EdChem (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Follow up... Smokefoot, I have some frustrations lately and I think they have come out in my comments to you. I apologise for not being more polite and less defensive.  EdChem (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Abelsonite
EdChem, now that Chris has answered your questions, I was wondering if you could come by and finish off this review, or at least give it an icon to show where it stands. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset, I have finished up the review but am not sure if I can approve ALT2 (which I think is the best hook) as I suggested it. It is a modification of ALT1 (which I can and have approved) and I think it is the most interesting.  Perhaps you might have a look and comment?  EdChem (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Reviews of chemist articles at FAC
Apologies if this request is a bit out of the blue, but I'm looking for someone willing to have a look at the chemistry parts of the article James Bryant Conant, which is currently being reviewed at FAC. The review is here. I'm not the nominator, but I've been reviewing it and was hoping someone with more than an undergraduate level of chemistry (me) would be willing to have a look. I was going to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry, but I see the two articles currently at FAC (and two recently finished there) are already listed in a box at the side. The other one is Josiah Willard Gibbs in case you are interested in that as well. If you are not interested or don't have time, no worries, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to ask. Carcharoth (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Carcharoth, FYI I have started on the chemistry side of the Conant FAC. EdChem (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth, just to let you know, I have finished commenting on Conant (at least until any replies are made). EdChem (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 starting soon
Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Still considering... EdChem (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

James B. Conant
Any more thoughts?? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Hawkeye, yes I have more to add, my apologies that I have yet to get back to this. I plan to post later today (my time).  Regards, EdChem (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am finished making comments, unless there are replies to my thoughts. I'm sure it'll go through.  :)  EdChem (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Indian Journal of Medical Research
I've reviewed this article at Template:Did you know nominations/Indian Journal of Medical Research; it passes the DYK criteria. However, my personal experience suggests readers aren't really very interested in articles on journals, and if you have the time I'd suggest trying to develop the current article further, to increase its potential interest. It would also be a good defence against those who seek to delete articles on journals with relatively low impact factors. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions, I'm thinking about them. EdChem (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, Hawkeye7, I was happy to help out with the FAC. EdChem (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Tantalum(V) ethoxide
( X! ·  talk )  · @224  · 00:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pardey Lukis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Surgeon-General (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification, Mr Bot (assuming you are a "Mr"). It led to a discussion at WT:Disambiguation and the Surgeon General page is no longer a dab page, so problem solved.  :)  EdChem (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Indian Journal of Medical Research
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Pardey Lukis
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter
Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:
 * was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
 * was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
 * was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
 * was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
 * was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:


 * was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
 * has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
 * claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of, who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. 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. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Bill Cosby in advertising
I think I might be on a more solid level for DYK, now. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well done on the improvements, Zanimum. Sorry I didn't get back to the nomination but I see Lord Roem has dealt with it, so it's all good.  :)  EdChem (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
ww2censor (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification and your response at the media copyright questions page. EdChem (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Reference_desk/Mathematics#How_to_prove - 11 Feb 2013
Hello, you put a lot of work into your response to this question. I didn't ask the question but was interested in a solution - thank you very much for posting this. Chris 77.86.3.26 (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate your comments. :)  EdChem (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
 * , primarily for an array of warship GAs.
 * , primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
 * , due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with, this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:
 * , whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
 * , whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
 * and, who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
 * , who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by : did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. 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. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)