User talk:EdChem/Archive 9

DYK for Solid nitrogen
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aromatization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ortho. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the notification, DPL bot. :)  EdChem (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Your ArbCom Comments
I appreciate your ArbCom evidence and your most recent ArbCom comment. Maybe I don't count. Thank you for pointing out the weirdness of some of what was meant to be chemistry. (You and I know that neither chemistry (which is universal) nor chemical notation (which is mostly standardized by IUPAC) depends on what continent someone is on.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Robert. Sadly, I feel at times that none of us count. EdChem (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aromatization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dipole moment. 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) 10:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * EdChem (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Popash, Florida
Actually, I do give a damn, and I appreciate your input at WT:DYK. I can only work on articles for so long... afterward, it may be up to others to improve them (hint, hint...). Cheers EdChem, North America1000 15:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would have re-added the references (without the links) sometime today but am glad you have done so first. Fram's goal of policy compliance is fine but his methods are not so good.  EdChem (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On the (+)-Benzo(a)pyrene-7,8-dihydrodiol-9,10-epoxide page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=723788310 your edit] caused an unsupported parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F723788310%7C(+)-Benzo(a)pyrene-7,8-dihydrodiol-9,10-epoxide%5D%5D Ask for help])
 * EdChem (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Aromatization
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

tert-Butyloxycarbonyl protecting group
A student added a bunch of new content to this article - would you please check it, if you have time? thx Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, the chemistry is ok though it is not how I would write the section. I have asked the student to fix the second image as it is wrong (it shows the reactant and product as identical instead of removing the protecting group).  I would be more inclined to take pick an actual synthesis, such as that of oseltamivir as the oseltamivir total synthesis has examples of (1) add tBOC protection, (2) carry out transformation(s) where the unprotected amine would react and then (3) remove the tBOC protection.  I would be inclined also to pick an example of adding protection where a tBOC group is not already present.  Not sure whether to try to open a discussion with the student at the moment without seeing the response to the image change request.  Also, I might be too ignorant of science to do it, according to the admin below. :(  Hope this help. Jytdog.  EdChem (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your approach makes sense, step-wise. Thanks for reviewing. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc
Any editor who thinks users are blocked or banned for opposing the inclusion of pseudoscience in scientific content of the encyclopaedia should stay far away from helping enforce policy. As someone who claims some knowledge of science, I am surprised at you for introducing such an obvious red herring into a serious discussion that may well influence someone's future ability to contribute to the encyclopedia. Please consider whether you are helping or hindering here. --John (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * John, first, my editing demonstrates my knowledge of science, so it is not merely a "claim". The two threads above are other editors asking for my help on science issues, which might also give you a clue.  As for pseudoscience issues relating to policy or ideology, you are the one that described the issues as ideological.  Frankly, I think your judgement of jps has been poor and your self-belief arrogant and unjustified.  If you think you are not coming across as patronising, I suggest you are in error.  Please recognise that you are not helping here, no matter what you might believe. EdChem (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I used the term "claim" advisedly. Many people consider themselves experts in areas they do not really understand. One of the foundational aspects of science is evidence. If you believe I offered to block User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc for "opposing the inclusion of pseudoscience in scientific content of the encyclopaedia" it should be really easy to demonstrate evidence to that effect. Can you do so? If you find you cannot, my assertion that your argument was a red herring stands. Are we perhaps indulging in rhetoric? Think carefully here rather than reacting emotionally. If you claim to use scientific thinking in your work, let's see you showing it rather than telling us about it. My Chemistry degree included an elective in History and Philosophy of Science, so I know a wee bit about this topic and can tell logic from rhetoric. I am sorry you find my judgement of User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc to be "poor". You may feel absolutely free to make evidence and logic-based arguments here or at my talk page about why you think this. So far as I have seen, you have not yet done so. I am sorry I seem to have come across as "arrogant"; sometimes unfortunately that is what somebody who knows things can look like to someone who does not. I am completely happy so far with everything I have said on the subject but of course as a human I am susceptible to error. I hope you will begin to assist me in pointing out (with evidence) any errors I may commit. Thanks for your interest in the matter and for this chat. --John (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

On the "claim" I know some science... interestingly, I pointed to evidence - my work - rather than claiming authority from credentialism. My chemistry degrees (note the plural) run to the doctoral level, however, if you want to go that route. Otherwise, note that I have written: So, are you willing to admit that I have substantial knowledge of science or go on asserting (without evidence) that it is merely a claim I make? EdChem (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * rhodocene, a chemistry FA
 * Hans Freeman, a biography GA
 * Aromatization, a new and growing article on an important class of chemical reactions
 * (+)-benzo[a]pyrene-7,8-dihydrodiol-9,10-epoxide, a pending DYK on a carcinogen
 * recent reviews of two different DYKs where I pointed out close paraphrasing issues
 * evidence in an ArbCom case on chemistry content which was cited by ArbCom in their decision.
 * Congratulations on rhodocene, EdChem. It's a super article. I don't mean to make it about credentials; I mean that a scientist should be able to argue with evidence and logic, rather than with assertion and red herrings. If you're a scientist you should understand that, and it relates very much to solving interpersonal problems on Wikipedia. If I say to another editor "Stop edit-warring and taking the piss out of other editors" and you come along and say "Don't tell him to stop fighting pseudoscience", you can expect me to point out the logical disconnect; I was very clearly talking about the methods, not the intentions. No hard feelings, and I look forward to working with you on future chemistry articles. I had a slight hand in getting metalloid to FA status, among other chemistry contributions, even though I just have the one degree and a postgrad in something else. --John (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the appreciation of the rhodocene article, it took a lot of work. Your tweaks / copy edits are appreciated too, as was removing the close paraphrasing - that section was not added by me, FYI, I have an aversion to misusing sources.  On Jps, I might come back to a broader discussion, but for now, please note that I am not in favour of jps getting himself blocked with incivility, and I have said so to him.  I've also known him on here for many years.  "Keeping fighting against pseudoscience" is not inconsistent with "don't get yourself blocked".  EdChem (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Colin Raston
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colin Raston, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Recrystallization. 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) 11:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * EdChem (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

BarnStar for Colin Raston

 * Thank you, Andrew, it is much appreciated. I saw Raston's work described on the TV show Catalyst and thought immediately of unboiling an egg as a DYK hook!  As for the credit, it has happened before and I am sure it will follow at some point once the bot issue is sorted.  I think this is my 25th DYK as a creator, and I think it is appropriate given my science background.  Thanks again.  EdChem (talk) 07:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Buntine
Thank you for the excellent work you are doing on building the List of Buntine Orations. May I suggest that the article should be Buntine Oration and this should include the historical background to its formation and a list of those that have been chosen to present it. The details of the extended family entitled Buntine family could then be built separately and it can link all Buntine related bios. I see that you have essentially already done this within your draft List of Buntine Orations. Street family is a good example of this style. I hope you don't mind me making this suggestion when you are doing all the hard work. Castlemate (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I started it planning to do just a list, but I changed a while back and will move the result to Buntine Oration. I've put in some details on the family, though I don't know which family members provided the bequest - WM Buntine died about 10 years before the oration started.  I'm going to keep working on the list, but if you want to add to the lede and section on the family, go for it.  :)  Cheers, EdChem (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't find any sign of a Buntine Oration after 2004. Were they discontinued, do you know?  EdChem (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Colin Raston
— Maile (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing the manual DYK posting while the bot is in the machine shop. One quick query... the post at talk:Colin Raston has an approximation for number of views (1136) but it is way off - the actual views was over 7000.  Where did the estimate come from?  Just curious.  Thanks.  EdChem (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * When I click on it, the number is 7,518.— Maile (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am talking about the message at talk:Colin Raston which says that a "fact from Colin Raston appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 17 June 2016, and was viewed ." I've highlighted in red the approximation I am confused about.  I agree that the actual views were 7518 – a good result! :) – but am confused about the approximation posted before the page views were known when you did the manual notifications.  Sorry if this is not important, I was just rather startled when I first saw it.  Thanks.  EdChem (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! It was left over from something else.  Now I need to go back and check the others.  So glad you told me about this. — Maile  (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad it was helpful :) EdChem (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of (+)-Benzo(a)pyrene-7,8-dihydrodiol-9,10-epoxide
Hello! Your submission of (+)-Benzo(a)pyrene-7,8-dihydrodiol-9,10-epoxide 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! Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for (+)-Benzo(a)pyrene-7,8-dihydrodiol-9,10-epoxide‎
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Asparagusic acid at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification, but it was left untranscluded for a reason. Now that all the expansion is done, I have transcluded it.  :)  EdChem (talk) 06:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Asparagusic acid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cofactor. 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) 09:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * EdChem (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Need expert help on a bio of a chemist
Hello EdChem,

I found your name on the talk page of WikiProject Chemistry-- would you be willing to look at Geraldine L. Richmond, especially the section on her research? In the past, the article has been edited by several people with COIs, and honestly the research section looks like it might be boilerplate used for a grant proposal. I tagged the section for lack of citations and overly technical language and left comments on the talk page admitting I don't have the expertise to repair that section. (I liked chemistry in high school, but that was over 50 years ago, so I plead early onset of something or other.) I'd appreciate any comments or help you have time to contribute. Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It certainly needs work, I will make some changes when I get a chance. :)  EdChem (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that the section on her research was (appropriately) removed as overly promotion. I have added a little on her work based on her highly cited publications, is that what you have in mind?  EdChem (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. I appreciate your work very much — you have not only summarised her research, you've provided context that is helpful to gauge the relevance of her research. Thanks for taking the time to improve the article. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Archived URLs
re Template:Did you know nominations/Scolopendra cataracta, to archive URLs I usually use the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, which is very easy to use (just enter the URL and click "Save"). I find archiving references very useful since it prevents many sources from being lost as dead links over time. Note that this is not a requirement for DYK, but simply my opinion. :) Best regards, Xwejnusgozo (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Australian College of Educators
 * added a link pointing to The King's School


 * Tetrakis(3,5-bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)borate
 * added a link pointing to Ethyl

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * and both dab links repaired.  EdChem (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Asparagusic acid
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Baruch Korff
Hello! Your submission of Baruch Korff 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! Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you've contacted the wrong person as I did the earlier review. I thought I had fixed this referencing issue (I had the same question on 11th century v. 73 generations) but I definitely have now - the support comes from The Jewish Chronicle article "In Poland, he became an ardent Zionist and, after study in yeshivas in Warsaw, Jerusalem and New York, was ordained a rabbi in 1934 - thus becoming the 73rd generation in an unbroken line of rabbis dating back to the 11th century."  The nominator was user:Alexislynn(BYU), FYI.  Regards, EdChem (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * GTG --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Tetrakis(3,5-bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)borate
The DYK project (nominate) 12:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

iron
Thank you so much for the additions! Double sharp (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. Let me know if you could use some more help.  :)  EdChem (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course, any help from you is most gratefully appreciated! I try to do as much as I can with what I know and the sources I can access, but it will not be enough! Double sharp (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2016 (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. --B-bot (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Buntine Oration
 * added a link pointing to Michael Kirby


 * Centipede
 * added a link pointing to Amphibious


 * Khao Sok National Park
 * added a link pointing to Amphibious


 * Scolopendra
 * added a link pointing to Amphibious


 * Scolopendridae
 * added a link pointing to Amphibious

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Buntine Oration link meant Michael Kirby (judge), now fixed. Other four were intended as definitions of amphibious, added because the centipede in question is amphibious (lives on land and in water) but not amphibian (a member of the biological class Amphibia.  Thanks, Bot.  :)  EdChem (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Scolopendra cataracta
Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Australian College of Educators
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Buntine Oration
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Ed, 25 DYKs is no mean feat

 * Thanks, Victuallers! EdChem (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hardy arbitration case opened
'' You were added to a mass-message list because of your displayed interest in this case. The Arbitration Committee will periodically inform you of the status of this case so long as your username remains on this list. ''

You were recently listed as a party to and/or commented on a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 25, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lizzie Armitstead, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Squash. 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) 09:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ EdChem (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Timothy N. Philpot
 * added links pointing to Congo, Republican Party and Circuit judge


 * List of University of Kentucky alumni
 * added a link pointing to Circuit judge

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ EdChem (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Award
EdChem, I'll comment here rather than over there as it is turning into a massive wall of text. I agree with much of what you say, I just think there are a few details that experience or optimism/pessimism might change. Anyway, I have been really frazzled by RL events and being insanely busy the last few weeks, which is why I haven't posted much on the talk page (article editing I find relaxing when frazzled). I don't think there is any reasonable place elsewhere on Wikipedia where admin tool use gets reviewed, which is why I accepted the case and would again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the award, though I am not sure that many I know would describe my patience as "infinite"! :)  I tend to agree with you that ArbCom is the only real place for reviewing sysop permissions – sadly, this case has me doubting it's reasonableness – though I am surprised to see an arbitrator claiming the community has the ability on the PD talk page.  However, it doesn't follow that every case of questionable admin action deserves a review, and I strongly believe that it is fine to take a case, have a look, and say there is nothing worth acting on.  As for not agreeing on everything, that's how things should be.  The world would be dull if we were all the same, and I have every respect for the right of other people to disagree with me and to be wrong. (joke)  Seriously, back-and-forth discussion is good for building consensus, in general.  I hope from your award that you consider me as having a sane voice, but sadly the case has me stepping away from ArbCom because the Committee as a whole is dangerously unpredictable.  I have real doubts that my posting to the PD talk page had any outcome worth the effort.  EdChem (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Faith Prince page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=741864304 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F741864304%7CFaith Prince%5D%5D Ask for help])
 * EdChem (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Michael Hardy is reminded that:
 * 2) Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
 * 3) All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
 * 4) Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.
 * 5) MjolnirPants is reminded to use tactics that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the 4th Pillar when dealing with other users they are in dispute with.
 * 6) The Arbitration Committee is reminded to carefully consider the appropriate scope of future case requests. The committee should limit "scope creep" and focus on specific items that are within the scope of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Arbitration Policy.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

The Rambling Man arbitration proposed decision posted
A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Adaptations of A Christmas Carol
 * added a link pointing to Larry Grossman


 * Six Dance Lessons in Six Weeks
 * added a link pointing to Intolerance


 * Timothy N. Philpot
 * added a link pointing to Fayette County

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * EdChem (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Élizabeth Teissier
— Chris Woodrich (talk)) 00:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Élizabeth Teissier page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=744073067 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F744073067%7CÉlizabeth Teissier%5D%5D Ask for help])
 * EdChem (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Articles on predatory practices
Hi, thanks for your additions to several articles on predatory practices in academia. I have a (minor) quibble, though: things like "John Doe stated that 'literal quote' and..." read more like a newspaper article than an encyclopedic article. Also, I don't think it is a good idea to use the exact same chunks of text in different articles. Some stuff is only tangentially relevant (e.g., the stuff about the Indian statute having been struck down: that was in a completely different and unrelated case). Hope this helps, continue the good work! --Randykitty (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for stopping by. I am open to copyediting based on your suggestions, or for you (or anyone) to make changes – no one owns articles, as I'm sure you agree.  When I add similar content in several places, I do try to tailor it to each context, though last night was certainly in a hurry so I may not have done as well as I would wish.  I included the "literal quote" as an example of the style and writing for readers to consider, coupled with Beall's comments on it.  That the letter threatened to lunch a law suit was amusing but the overa;; tone is quite threatening.  Regarding the striking down of the statute on constitutional grounds, it was an unrelated case but it renders impossible the threatened action against Beall, and so is highly relevant.  Was I unsuccessful in making that clear?  Regards, EdChem (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've edited the "Legal threats" section in the Jeffrey Beall article to show what I mean. Similarly, I think that the section on "predatory publishing" in the article on predatory conferences should be pared down considerably, especially since it has a hatnote referring readers to the main article on this subject. As it stands now, that section is almost half as large as the main article, which I don't think is necessary. --Randykitty (talk) 06:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , your changes to the Beall legal threats section makes it tighter and more focussed, good job. Pairing back the predatory publishing materials at the predatory conferences article would be appropriate, I agree.  When I wrote it, a compute failure cost me 3-4 hours work so I am sure I could have done better, which is a reason to be glad of WP's "anyone can edit" philosophy – if I try to cut it back, it won't be immediately, so go for it if you want to have a go.  FYI, I have added to Beall's article the FTC suit against OMICS because the allegations fit closely with what Beall has been saying which prompted OMICS into threatening him in the first place.  Hopefully it is tighter than other recent writing.  I'm happy to hear your view, if you have time for a look.  Regards, EdChem (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh man, i know that and have had it, too. Very frustrating to lose several hours worth of work! Speaking about work, I'm pretty busy in RL at the moment, so I may not find time soon to look into this into more than I already did... --Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Beall/OMICS/FTC
Hi EdChem,

Not much time, so just a quick message: it looks to me like the best case for what you're trying to do is a pretty serious case of WP:SYNTH: it's not our job as editors to push the reader that Beall is justified in his OMICS criticisms, and this event really has nothing to do with Beall as a person. Unless sources are explicitly making the link with Beall, I think you should reconsider the addition.

All the best, JBL (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A agree with JBL and have removed this. --Randykitty (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion at Talk:Jeffrey Beall. I believe the problem is more one of my poorly chosen wording, what I am noting is that the FTC allegations match the examples Beall has published, and there are RS that note this.  Thanks for your comments, though, always happy to try to improve anything I add.  Regards, EdChem (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 November newsletter: Final results
The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:
 * First Place -
 * Second Place -
 * Third Place -

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:
 * Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
 * Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
 * Featured List – produced 2 FLs in R2
 * Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
 * Featured Portal – produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
 * Featured Topic – and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
 * Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
 * Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
 * In The News – and, each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
 * Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. ,, and

Ahn
Hi! I've answered all the feedback at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know, in the event you are interested in reviewing and responding. ScooterSponson (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)