User talk:Nucleophilic

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Nunquam Dormio 08:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Nobel Prize
I have answered you on the Talk:Nobel Prize page. -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 17:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Inzelt seems fine to me. I rewrote the entry to try and make it more concise, let me know what you think. I figured it could be expanded on in the controversy and organic polymer sections if necessary. I know we seem to have gone around in a circle, but thanks for sticking with it, at least now we have got a better reference. AIR corn (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw the edit you made on the sections on Nobel Prize. I do not completely agree with your edit their since it made it harder to navigate. The organization and layout has passed a GA review and did not get any opposes on the FA review so it is fitted it looks as it did before.

I changed your citations a bit. According to Citing sources : Because of the difficulties in associating them with their appropriate full citations, the use of embedded links for inline citations is not recommended as a method of best practice and is not found in featured articles. So I formatted them correctly, I also used the book instead since it is always a better to cite the book directly than a page that is citing the book. If I have cited the wrong pages feel free to correct me!

Cheers -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please look at Talk:Nobel Prize and Peer review/Nobel Prize/archive2. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Left you a new message, please respond if you have the time. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 20:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello. According to the recommendation of another editor I continued the discussion at Talk:Nobel Prize (see comments there). Could you add a short oppose or support there? Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 17:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please add your support or oppose to the page. We are trying to get a clear and short consensus. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 20:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nucleophilic, please do not add the section again to the Nobel Prize page, to do so now would be to oppose a clear consensus and a Wikipedia "rule." If you fail to comply with this consensus and still add it you will be reported. But I sincerely hope we do not need to take matters so far. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "You will be reported " is an empty threat-- my hands here are completely clean.  I have been posting on wikipedia a long time and know flagrant rule violations when I see them.  Quickly recognizing what was going on,  I surrendered the point long ago, merely probing to see how far you would go. Nucleophilic (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

section from nobel prize
- In some cases, awards have arguably omitted similar discoveries made earlier. For example, the 2000 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for "the discovery and development of conductive organic polymers" in 1977 ignored the much earlier discovery of similarly highly conductive iodine-doped polypyrroles by Donald Weiss and coworkers. and DeSourvill et al as well as an earlier report of an actual organic semiconductor electronic device. For reviews, see. This device is now in the National Museum of American History "Smithsonian Chips" collection. . See figure. "}}.
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 09:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

 * Question: Would you remove your objection to formal mediation if the list of involved editors is rectified? Hasteur (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Answer Would consider it depending on what other editors do. But unlikely.  This whole thing has left a very bad taste.  First, a simple disagreement that I was making good faith efforts to resolve on the talk page was escalated.   I have been here for six years, contributed many edits,  including to the various guideline pages, etc. and have have never seen or heard of anything like this,  at least not without an editor being taken to task for it.


 * Nor were any other editors allowed the opportunity to add their input to the talk page before this was taken for "mediation". Very tendentious behavior.  Editors don't wander by obscure bio pages like this every day.    It almost seems like the original editor takes any opposition as reason for such escalation.  Very unwikilike behavior.   Then we get over to informal mediation involving a "mediator" whose record of posting resembles that of the editor who took it to mediation.


 * Next, another "mediator" with a very bad history here on wikipedia, including accusations of sockpuppetry and tendentiousness. See: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Noleander. Note that I did not bring up this matter previously ( arguably, a violation of wp:assume good faith),  but merely tried to correspond to what he asked.  Then another editor signed up seemingly just to pile on.   I have seen such banned on AfD's.


 * The final straw is when this gets taken to formal mediation with the editors how supported my POV stratiegically-omitted. Just what is an editor to think.   Anyway,  I'm tired of this business.  Never intended to get so involved.   I surrender.


 * I would be interested in an independent ruling on the issue, this is whether wp:blp specifically allows boilerplate info like education and employment to be used in bios.  Seems to me that is the exact meaning of the passage.  Anyway,  it would be almost impossible to do a bio of anyone without using it and this seem general practice.  However,  this is not the place to do it.  Nucleophilic (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Addendum: To make this business even stranger,  the editor who initiated this mess, user:chantoke, has changed his name for the second time in about a week.  He is now listed as "Vanished user dio0ojse8h3iseofihjoine45y". The mind boggles. Nucleophilic (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not that I intend to butt in to an otherwise private discussion but Nucleophilic, the discussion (and the mediation request) is not about you or any other editor but is about changing the article to make it reflect NPOV. I am sorry that you feel the way you do. I agree, that we should not add contentious information (and libelous) information such as Dr. Proctor sells hair-oil into the aticle because it may attract a libel suit from the Doctor, but then we should also not add single source information like the contributions of the Doctor I objected to as single source. If we don't, then it will appear that we are promoting the Doctor unfairly. Either way, however the mediation ends, I hope it will make you feel better to know that this discussion or mediation is not intended with any kind of malice directed at you. As far as Nucleophilic having a dark past on Wikipedia is concerned, hey, we all make controversial edits right? Hope to hear from you in the mediation. -Wikishagnik (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Doubltless, you mean user:noleander has the "black past", though it is not so past and the several proceedings reflect things I see here. Similarly, the tertiary sources are right there in the article. Some quoted directly. So what is this all about?

WP:assume good faith again---Arguably, expert editors tend to talk a different language and operate under a different set of assumptions than non-expert editors. So sometimes the failure of such editors to get the (obscentity-deleted) point when it is right in front of them can be a source of great frustration. I have heard this called the "Bob from Cincinatti" problem. Nucleophilic (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nucleophilic you are still refusing to answer questions about whether this Peter Proctor is the same doctor who sells hair solutions (if you know him by reputation or otherwise)and if he is then whether we should also include this information in the article for NPOV. Yes, the academic papers you brought in as source do suggest all points you make but then again I have not come across any source in the article or in Google Books that support such assertions. Yes, their could be peer-reviewed articles but then that still is a primary source. If this subject is an authority in a field then there should be secondary sources that claim so and also say who he is and where he is working right? I mean it isn't a crime for a doctor to sell hair solutions and even if that venture failed and the doctor is stil a notable person then any article on him should reflect this right? I can understand your frustaration with new people and inexperienced editors and people not from the same field but 99% of people who come to Wikipedia are like that and all articles are required to meet quality standards suitable for such editors. Isn't that fair? -Wikishagnik (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The various magazine articles state he is an expert in hair loss treatment.  Don't recall which ones-- just follow the links. As I pointed out previously on the talk page when another editor tried to put it into the body of the article,  this is arguable-commercial material that I am reluctant to put on a biopage.   So I and other editors have just left it in the links.  Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Nucleophilic (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is the quote from the talk page: "...Also, his interviews on this subject (editor: hair loss) in (e.g.) Newsweek are cited in the body of the article. If you like, this can be enlarged upon. Similarly, because of the commercial implications, I personally think details of all his patents, etc. should not be in a wikipedia bio. But if you insist. Nucleophilic (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)" This is still my view. Readers can folow the links if they are interested.Nucleophilic (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring
I've reported edit warring at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring. --Noleander (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * With due respect, you seem to be the one who is edit warring.  I have stayed away from the page, after giving in on your original point. Nucleophilic (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The edit of yours I am referring to is, where you re-inserted material. The sequence was:
 * The material was tagged "citation needed"
 * After two weeks elapsed without a citation being supplied the material was removed
 * You re-inserted the material, without sourcing
 * The relevant polices are WP:V and WP:BURDEN. --Noleander (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)