User talk:Jslipscomb

Please be careful about conflict of interest
If you are related to Nobelist Lipscomb, then you need to be super careful in contributing to his legacy. It would be considered very poor taste for an editor to use Wikipedia to promote themselves or their relatives. See WP:COI. Your edits on molecular graphics are also problematic as they appear to be self-promotion. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I am super careful in contributing to William Lipscomb's legacy, and I appreciate correction from those who know chemistry better. I wrote an essay on my User Page on specific steps that I have taken to try to be correct and to counteract the aura of the Nobel sometimes sucking away credit from colleagues. Consider too that edits may not be self-promotion if they are historically important, which may be so for the following: I wonder about the undo on the Chemical Shift page of the reference to Lipscomb's comprehensive paper on the subject, which I am told used to be basically the Bible for NMR spectroscopy. -jslipscomb

I recommend laying off further contributions related to your father. It is impossible for you to be objective, and it would be mistake for you to compete with editors on content about yourself or your father. So dont revert the NMR section, the other editors have no axe to grind and no legacy to enhance. If you are truly interested in Wikipedia, then I recommend editing on topics that could not be possibly perceived as self-promotion, if you are willing. Thanks for responding.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

My exit plan for Lipscomb's page: I have an informal agreement with one of Lipscomb's former informal Ph.D. students (worked in Lipscomb's lab but was not his student) that if I do the work of growing Lipscomb's page from the practically nothing that it started out as, then he would marshal Bill's former students to fix it up, this to be done after this fellow publishes the book "The Scientific Legacy of William Lipscomb", perhaps later this year, whose purpose is to establish a coherent and complete picture of Lipscomb. Then, I plan to remind him of his promise and we'll see if he comes through and the chemistry professionals take over the page.

I think I understand why my Molecular Graphics page edits look slanted. Some visitors see just my highlighted system and therefore only my personal involvement, because nothing obvious indicates that credit to dozens of other researchers and their many systems, including highlighting the Richards Box and the MMS-X system, as well as other scholarship in that section also came from me, unless one checks the edit history.

I hope that I am basically done with both pages, having just completed the last planned section of the Lipscomb page. Cheers. -jslipscomb 8 March 2011


 * It is always amusing to me at least, to read how otherwise smart people rationalize blatant conflicts of interest. Your responses are disappointing and condescending - what else could you do? My prediction is that when you are finished promoting you and your family, then you will make a token neutral edit or three, and then return to Wikipedia only to tend to the family shrine. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

My Molecular Graphics entry deserved its criticism. I made a large change to address this concern. Concerning the William Lipscomb entry I posted notice on my talk page that it is time for others to take over, with a suggested add/delete/change list posted on the Lipsomb Discussion page. I should have done both of these straight away. --James S. Lipscomb 17:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

William Lipscomb External Links edit - Oops
Sorry about that, I hope I've now fixed it. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 00:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your understanding, regarding that.
 * I moved the EL section to the end on about 1000 articles - "semi automatic", and tried hard to check all of them; I've found about 6 that were incorrect (like that one) and, in each case, fixed it and tried to improve my methods for more. There's actually almost 100,000 articles with misplaced external links!
 * Regarding the article - and anything else - I'm always happy to try and help, if there's any other things you need fixing up; I understand you have to be cautious in editing it.
 * The article itself unfortunately (IMHO) contains far too much detail about specific technical chemistry things - as another said on the talk, I think it would improve it to move much of that into other articles, and keep that as a BLP with only a "layman's" mention of the areas in which the Professor worked - not ignoring the major fields and accomplishments, but avoiding getting into discussion of the underlying science; if readers want to know the detail about a specific topic, the wiki-link leads them to it.
 * Incidentally - you worked on Watson? (I looked at your user page) -Superb. I watched it on Jeopardy recently; that's an amazing project.
 * Anyway - that's just my 2-pence-worth. If you do ever need help with edits to it, or anything else, feel free to ask me. Thanks again for your understanding with my error. Best,  Chzz  ► 17:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Problem with your custom signature
You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your preferences are set to interpret your custom signature as wikitext. However, your current custom signature does not contain any wikitext.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.


 * Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * Remove anything in the text box.  (It might already be empty.)
 * Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)
 * Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page.

More information about custom signatures is available at Signatures. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. 19:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)