User talk:EdChem/Archive 8

Disambiguation link notification for May 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Will.i.am, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Voice (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) 08:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In re PP edit controversy
…see interspersed italic comments, and final proposal at. Written at the time, and just discovered as not posted. Cheers, and respect your involvement. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter
After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's, whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from, a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of.

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Precious again
  analysing spirit

Thank you for quality articles, such as Rhodocene and Hans Freeman, based on scientific chemical background, and the music of Spirit Touches Ground, for uploading chemical images and cricket graphs, and for, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (17 September 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 546th recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 August newsletter
The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:


 * , a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
 * 1) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
 * 2) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
 * 3) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
 * 4) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
 * 5) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
 * , the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
 * , the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.

We say goodbye to this year's semi-finalists. ,, , , , and  have all performed well to reach this stage of the competition, and we hope they will all be joining us again next year.

There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.

There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 September newsletter
In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. , who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014: The results
The 2014 WikiCup champion is, who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. , 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. , WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.

A full list of our prize-winners follows:


 * wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 181 featured pictures in the final round.
 * wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 65 did you knows in the final round.
 * wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for four featured articles in the final round.
 * wins the prize for fourth place
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins the GA prize for 27 good articles in round 2 and the review prize for 28 good article reviews in round 1.
 * wins the FL prize for three featured lists in round 2.
 * wins the FPo prize his work on featured portals.
 * wins the topic prize for a nine-article featured topic in round 3.
 * wins the news prize for 28 in the news articles in round 3.

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...
Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.


 * We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
 * In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
 * The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter
Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! 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 GAN, 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. Good luck! , and

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please visit...
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket --Dweller (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cover of 2012 67(10) issue of Zeitschrift für Naturforschung B.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Cover of 2012 67(10) issue of Zeitschrift für Naturforschung B.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cover of Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Cover of Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cover of Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Cover of Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge,  led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
 * took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
 * worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
 * developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
 * And last but not least, worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

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. , and

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus. Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
 * was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
 * took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
 * worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! , and  16:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter
The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:


 * , who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy.  A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
 * , second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
 * , first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany.  Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
 * , second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
 * , from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
 * , from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
 * , from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
 * , also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

, and  11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015: The results
WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is. All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. , a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to. Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:


 * wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 330 featured pictures in the final round.
 * wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 160 did you knows in the final round (310 in all rounds).
 * wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for 26 featured articles in all rounds.
 * wins the prize for fourth place
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize and the FL prize for 11 featured lists.
 * wins the most prizes: a final 8 prize, the GA prize for 41 good articles, and the topic prize for a 13-article good topic and an 8-article featured topic, both in round 3.
 * wins the news prize for the most news articles in round 3.

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

, and  18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have voted. The 2015 ArbCom has been pretty awful in some ways, let's hope 2016 is a substantial improvement.  EdChem (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Rename Files
I just uploaded two photos, File:SeaPort Airlines Cessna N1029Y at PDT on 11Oct2015 - 1.jpeg and File:SeaPort Airlines Cessna N1029Y at PDT on 11Oct2015 - 2.jpeg, both of which I took, for use on pages like SeaPort Airlines, Cessna 208, and Eastern Oregon Regional Airport. I took the photos myself on Thursday 15 November, 2015, at that airport, as indicated in the file descriptions. Unfortunately, I have used the date 11Oct2015 instead of 15Oct2015 in the file names. Would an admin / file mover please change the names of these files to the correct date? The redirects need not be left in place if the changes are made before I add the images to main space. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ed. EdChem (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion
The article on Trent Zimmerman was deleted earlier this year at an AfD (Articles for deletion/Trent Zimmerman). He was standing in the North Sydney by-election, 2015 held today, where he won 47% of the primary votes and will easily be elected to the Australian House of Representatives replacing former-Treasurer Joe Hockey. A Sydney Morning Herald article confirming his win is here: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/liberal-trent-zimmerman-wins-north-sydney-byelection-despite-swing-20151205-glgfba.html As such, he is definitely now notable. I was going to start an article until I noticed the AfD and thought the old article might be undeleted instead as it likely has some useful material. I could go to Deletion Review, but this seems bureaucratic given WP:POLITICIAN - he is notable as a member of a national legislature. Help! Thanks, EdChem (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Deor has undeleted the page following a talk page request and I have added evidence of notability and returned the page to article space. EdChem (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Wrong button!
Apologies for that! Have a good day -- samtar whisper 08:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, Samtar, I saw you self-reverted. :)  EdChem (talk) 08:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse
Thanks for responding. EdChem (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iminodiacetic acid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer. 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) 09:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ EdChem (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

See new Talk section
...at the Cantharidin article, svp. It regards where the "Popular culture" information should appear. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...
Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.

We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.

The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Benzylamine
Hello! Your submission of Benzylamine at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  06:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Trent Zimmerman
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/DNA walker
EdChem, your review was responded to and the identified section of close paraphrasing has been edited. Can you please check to see what, if anything, remains to be done on this nomination? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Benzylamine
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned DYK nominations
EdChem, this section has been archived from the main DYK talk page and can now be found at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 120. I was going to process the remaining ones tonight, but I saw your post suggesting that you'd perhaps like to adopt Template:Did you know nominations/Washington Medal of Valor, one of the ones from 2014.

I will hold off at least until the end of January 31 (UTC), three weeks from your most recent edit, before closing the remaining templates, in case you still wish to shepherd through any of the remaining ones. Yoninah took two, SusunW took one, and I also took one; the rest remain. There are six left in the "nominator not active" section, three in 2015, five in 2014 (including the Washington Medal of Valor one), and one from December 2013, for a total of fifteen. I hope you return while the opportunity remains open. If so, be sure to let me know your plans. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter


That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.

Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by, and two each by , , , and. Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by. Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with completing nine.

If you are concerned that your nomination 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. ,, and --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 March newsletter (update)
Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. ,, and .--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Your evidence submission in the Wikicology arbitration case
The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is just under 800 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 18:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Request noted. Options under consideration / discussion above.  EdChem (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi EdChem. As this is particularly relevant to you (re. word limits), and a drafter requested you be notified, here is a cross-posted announcement recently made on behalf of the case drafters:
 * Extension of word limits

Thanks. For the drafters, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I have expanded my evidence, thanks for the notifications. EdChem (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Nitrogen dioxide
Hi, I didn't understand "this sentence should end "nitrogen(II) oxide"." Peter Damian (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Peter, I just meant that, in formatting terms, Wikicology's "Nitrogen (II) oxide" should actually be "nitrogen(II) oxide" - if that were the compound being described. My point was that scientists know the conventions for writing names, which makes it odd that Wikicology does not appear familiar with him.  The situation deteriorates, too, when it is recognised that he does not mean NO (nitric oxide / nitrogen(II) oxide) at all.  Should I clarify what I wrote in the evidence?  EdChem (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It was the 'thus' that confused me. "Oxidation states are not separated from the element to which they refer. Thus, this sentence should end "nitrogen(II) oxide"."  I couldn't follow the logical step because I don't know what an 'oxidation state' is. It might help to clarify for dummies like me. Thanks. Really useful points you make there. Peter Damian (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The roman numerals in parentheses are oxidation states. Nitrogen(II) oxide = NO whilst nitrogen(IV) oxide = NO2, a distinction which Wikicology appears not to understand.  Carbon(I) oxide would be C2O if it existed, not the CO which Wikicology meant.  EdChem (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

What confused me was the roman numeral in e.g. 'Nitrogen II oxide'. What does it mean? I initially thought, like Wc, that it refers to the number of oxygen atoms. It means something else, right? Also, it seems like a beginners type mistake, yes? Peter Damian (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Ah right, Oxidation state. So the roman II refers to the oxidation state. It seems like this is a very gross error, yes? He confused the expression for Nitrogen oxide with something else? Peter Damian (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As you have found, the (II) refers to the oxidation state of the nitrogen in the compound. For two-element compounds, the each oxidation state times the number of that atom present cancels to zero.  Since the oxidation state of oxygen is always -II in compounds, nitrogen(II) oxide will be NO as a +2 nitrogen will cancel a -2 oxygen.  For nitrogen(IV) oxide, we have a +4 nitrogen and so need two -2 oxygens to balance the charge, and so nitrogen(IV) oxide is NO2.  Wikicology also made the mistake of thinking carbon(I) oxide was CO when it would actually be C2O and doesn't exist.  Carbon monoxide is CO, and would be carbon(II) oxide under this naming system. Yes, I consider this a beginner mistake, it is certainly taught at High School in Australia.  It was also for this reason that his answer which classed beryllium poisoning as an example of gas poisonings was a surprise, as any chemist should know that beryllium is a solid at room temperature.  Further, beryllium poisoning is characterised by granulomas (from wiki-page: a "granuloma is an inflammation found in many diseases. It is a collection of immune cells known as histiocytes. Granulomas form when the immune system attempts to wall off substances it perceives as foreign but is unable to eliminate.") formed by the body to deal with solid particles of beryllium.  Gas poisonings aren't like this, and while some symptoms might be superficially similar, I would expect a biochemist to understand the process and the differences. Another example is the statement from the biochemical effects part of the article " It also causes a decrease in Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase which may results in Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency known as favism, a condition that predisposes to hemolysis (spontaneous destruction of red blood cells).[47]" Ref 47 is another rat study on NO2, which is a questionable basis for such a broad statement.  More disturbingly, the abstract states that "The activities of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase and glutathione reductase were significantly higher than those in the control group for the 9-month exposure. In the 18-month exposure, however, they showed a tendency to return to control level."  Any scientist *should* know that the control group is the one not exposed to the test and so the abstract actually says that the levels of this enzyme were higher in the treatment group but the article says the levels decreased. As you can see from the section below, I have been asked to shorten my evidence but I want the points made to be clear.  I am highlighting examples that suggest limited understanding of the chemistry, poor choice of sources, and mistaken interpretation of those sources, in addition to sources being incorrect as you have noted.  The more I trim my presentation, the more unclear I fear it becomes.  Also, since expertise is not recognised on WP, I wonder whether to add something on my own editing to establish my chemistry knowledge is accepted by other editors.  Any and all advice welcomed.  EdChem (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Another useful example from the lead of the article is this sentence:
 * Known sources of Nitrogen gas poisoning includes automobile exhaust, Power stations, The toxicity may also results from non-combustible sources such as the one released from anaerobic fermentation of food grains and Anaerobic digestion of Biodegradable waste.[
 * Firstly, nitrogen gas poisoning is the bends and has nothing to do with nitrogen dioxide poisoning. Secondly, "anaerobic fermentation" is wikilinked to lactic acid fermentation, which doesn't involve nitrogen (it is a major source of methane from sugars).  Thirdly, the linked anaerobic digestion page show that nitrogen in these cases ends up mostly as ammonia.  The reference does mention nitrogen and its oxides, but a biochemist should know that significant NO2 production requires oxygen (ie. aerobic not anaerobic conditions) and that the anaerobic product of metabolising nitrogen is overwhelmingly ammonia.  In other words, interpreting the reference appropriately requires recognition that one of the products listed is vastly more significant in terms of quantity than are the others. I also notice that the description of nitrogen dioxide in the lead is incomplete, in that it is a red-brown gas but exists in equilibrium as colourless dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) and at low temperatures this second form is the dominant form. It does not become colourless though the colour intensity may fade to be not noticeable as concentration decreases, in addition to reacting to form N2O4. Coming back to your original question, my impression is Wikicology is enthusiastic about science but has knowledge gaps that I would hope not to see in a graduate in the field.  Whether the handling of references is careless or ignorant or deceptive is arguable, but it is problematic no matter what.  EdChem (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: I edited your comments above and placed them here. Please amend as necessary and add any other material that would help people understand the nature of the case. Arbitrators often accept links to evidence, or they might even accept a longer 'group' submission. It's important that we all understand that there are significant factual errors. Peter Damian (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I have expanded my evidence based on the above. Any thoughts / comments welcome.  EdChem (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me :) Peter Damian (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Chemistry mistakes
WC has given reasons here why he made mistakes in the chemistry articles. It doesn't make sense to me. Could you help? Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw it and am planning to comment on the Workshop. First impression was it didn't make sense to me as an explanation for how they happened.  EdChem (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Analysis added to Workshop page. EdChem (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks that explains it all very well. Peter Damian (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pentamethylcyclopentadiene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VCH. 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) 12:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ link pointed to Wiley-VCH, the intended target. EdChem (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 May newsletter


Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.

Round 2 saw three FAs (two by and one by ), four Featured Lists (with three by ), and 53 Good Articles (six by  and five each by, , and ). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by and five by ). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. scored 265 base points, while and  each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, and, broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.

If you are concerned that your nomination 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. ,, and -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

About your section "Other images"
Why are you interested in the gay pornography business? or are you a trans-woman/man yourself? I'm just curious as to why you have pictures of her there. I don't mean to be rude.MarkiSepticPie 08:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I happened across a report on Stonie (as then she was) in the Borat film, then learned she was transitioning, which I thought would be an interesting DYK, so I wrote the article. In the process, I contacted her manager to get suitably licensed image(s), and I keep notes on my contributions on my user page.  EdChem (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, that makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up.MarkiSepticPie 02:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)