User talk:TCO/Archive 7

Merry Christmas!


Fallschirmjäger &#9993; is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Value judgements at FPC
We get that you don't agree with the featured picture criteria (and there never will be a "TCO has determined the subject to be important" criterion, so I'm not sure you ever will), and I know it's going to take you a while to get into your head that you are being unambiguously disruptive by opposing on your made up criteria, but surely even you can see that to claim that a subject is completely unimportant despite having not even read the opening line of the article is just ridiculous? J Milburn (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I will try not to be disruptive. I do think you should allow different perspectives. If you start tossing out my votes, I will just not participate, but I think that will be a loss for your program, not a gain.  Sometimes it is worthwhile to allow different ideas, even if you don't agree.  And encyclopedicity can be a spectrum not an on/off.  (I mean we don't list every technical blemish as an on/off decision or an equation either.)  Do you just want robots or people actually thinking about the stuff.  I do try to engage with this stuff and look at the articles and such.  Purely technical discussions will lose a lot and you end up disconnected from really serving articles and readers.  Anyhow, I really think you should allow alternate viewpoints, man.  Even ones you disagree with.TCO (Reviews needed) 14:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, I agree with you completely about allowing different perspectives, and I certainly agree with you with regards to the on/off of "encyclopedicity", but dismissing certain images because they're of something that you personally don't care about (or do not meet criteria that you personally have arbitrarily decided) is most certainly not in the spirit of cooperation, or anything to do with the featured picture criteria. Yes, there may be grounds for being stricter on incredible minor topics or more leniant on incredibly important topics (though, on the flip side, we may say that with the important topics, it's important to get it right). There are certainly grounds for being harsher/more leniant depending on the rarity of the photograph. However, what you're doing is not fair, and is not based on the featured picture criteria; it's based on your well-known and clearly apparent agenda. If you were editing like this in other areas, you'd face blocks for pushing your point of view, tendentious editing and so on. People have made quite clear where you can go and stick your ideas and theories when you've pushed them elsewhere; that doesn't mean you can just move onto the next process. As I've said before, I liked you as a person, and had respect for you as an editor, before this whole situation; I'd love to get back to that, and I'd love to see more of your articles. I hope you won't take this too personally.


 * There's no way I want tickboxes for the criteria and robots for the reviewers. I'm a philosopher, not a computer scientist. However, this isn't a free-for-all. As a point of comparison, two Biblical scholars could have a legitimate disagreement about the meaning of a particularl parable; that doesn't mean someone else can come along and say "this parable should be ignored, because the sky is blue and today is Friday". Especially when it isn't Friday. J Milburn (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm just calling it the way I see it. Is it a viewpoint or an agenda or just taking a wider perspective?  Could be the same thing but all have different connotations.  It's not some sneaky thing.  This is how I've always voted.


 * Honest, just start throwing my votes out and I will disengage. There is no need to threaten a block or vote to get rid of me or any of that white blood cells resisting the foreign organism stuff.


 * I still think you lose and become more insular if you toss out a different perspective. I am really trying to engage with the pics and the articles.


 * I'm not discussing it further, here. You and I are repeating points.TCO (Reviews needed) 15:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have ideals; you have an agenda; they are conspiring. Highly irregular verb.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Fluorine paper
Hi TCO. I can get hold of that fluorine paper you want, but not for a week or so. If no one else gets it to you by then, drop me an email (I'll need to send it to you by email) and I'll get on to it. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Stupid me, I should have said that I meant "The early history of hydrofluoric acid" SmartSE (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sent.TCO (Reviews needed) 21:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting post
And thanks for leaving it although in the current climate I might have smiled a bit more, if you know what I mean. Have you ever seen this? Most interesting. I was a bit surprised to see who supported elections, in 2007.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Pathetic. (that old discussion.)  Wiki seems to attract people who want to have control over others.  To play moderator.  I wouldn't want a volunteer job if I couldn't pass an election.  I respect the admins who have done followup RFAs.  Not the pry from my dead hand types.TCO (Reviews needed) 13:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ouch. Hope you don't mean me.  I consider my use of the tools inoffensive.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't mean you (whatever that means). I'm not as smart as you think I am.  Like I have no idea what smiled a bit more means.  It's fine though.


 * I respect you even if we disagree sometimes. No one sees everything 100% alike.  Besides, you have lots to be proud of, huge stuff...no question, and shouldn't lose sweat on what TCO thinks!  But, if it makes good feeling, same as I told Malleus, it is very favorable.  FWIW.


 * Still two days of Xmas left...TCO (Reviews needed) 16:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not important. Thanks though.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically I was trying to hint what Carcharoth said rather more bluntly.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your comments at WT:FAC
I've temporarily redacted the comments you made in that discussion at WT:FAC, and pointed people to your talk page for details. In an edit just before that, I've stated my objections to the atmosphere your comments there have created. I'm asking you to please rewrite what you said and remove the personalised comments. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've shown less disrespect to others than others have to me. And I stand behind the remarks.  It is plain speaking.


 * FAC should not be a single person's preserve. You all are WAY too trapped in that mindset.  And no emphasis on growth or outreach.  Just more discussion of the same people.   We need to stop thinking about one person and think about the program.


 * Actually I did not see a big kerfuffle after my remarks so that part of your comment is off. Probably more accurate to just say you disagreed with the tone per se than that it prompted a scuffle.


 * I'm not going to rewrite my comment. You can, if you care.  End of discussion.


 * TCO (Reviews needed) 01:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The only points you'd really need to rewrite are points B and E (and possibly a few other bits I may have missed). What I will do is add a diff there to your original comments (so they aren't censored, and anyway, one of the comments was quoted back at you) and a diff to what you've said here, and then leave it at that. What I'm trying to do here is ensure the discussion doesn't go off the rails, and people carry on commenting. Carcharoth (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I trust you. Do what you think best. Thanks for taking care of it, man.TCO (Reviews needed) 01:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Buying the room a beer isn't very generous, TCO. Divided among the room, it will barely wet the throat, which are very dry after this kind of discussion.  In practice, the glass would never get past Jimbo.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

TTT
OK, you have me completely stumped. Who or what is TTT?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Tony the Tiger. Check out his user page, with the "farming implements" (numchucks) and there is a youtube of him doing a set of 105# db presses (no kidding).TCO (Reviews needed) 20:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK! I wade in the heavy end of the dumb bell pile, myself.  I screwed up my shoulder doing Arnold Presses 10 years ago(seated shoulder presses which you rotate out at extension) with 85 lb dbs...then going into Aikido class and having someone torque my shoulder.  I had to stop Aikido and lifting for almost 2 years...almost drove me nuts.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Good man. I am going to lift legs tonight. HAve to take it easy with shoulder and knee, but I find if I do a moderate amount it actually helps (too much and I get hurt, too little and I get worse too).
 * Yeah, I hear you on that. I used to do squats till I puked, literally.  Now I just do them until I'd rather sleep in the car than walk up the 5 steps to my house!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Newcomer's guide
Hi there! We've all been slowly adding to WP:The End and now it's becoming quite long. It occured to me the other day that we might be able to split it into a guide instead of a single page with the same down-to-earth language and helpfulness. I've started a prototype, please check it out and let me know if it's worth doing.--v/r - TP 16:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Newcomer's guide is a good idea. I would change the name to...Newcomer's guide. Also, get rid of the box that says it relates to deletion policy.TCO (Reviews needed) 16:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relates to deletion policy?--v/r - TP 16:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Admin Review
Hey, no fair! I get down and do grunt work sometimes, didn't you see my latest article? Surgical positions.--v/r - TP 18:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good job. Guess you are all over the place!  TCO (Reviews needed) 19:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I try to get around.--v/r - TP 19:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Geometry guy 06:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: The End
Hi! I notice you've been doing some good work editing the essay The End. I also saw you had a good PowerPoint presentation on Wikipedia, linked from your user page. Can you tell me, since the ppt appears to be all your work (presentation-wise) what your graphics skills are like? Basically, since there is a suggestion to turn the essay into a user guide, but much simpler than the existing tutorial (which links to policies in a snowball fashion), I'm wondering if you can help with any graphical elements. I'm thinking there needs to be something visual if it is going to go that far, although just with a few simple pointers, ie. showing people how to reach talk pages, how to edit mainspace, and how to post a "help me" message on their talk page. Not sure if it's a good idea, but if so, are you able to help? Best wishes, IBE (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I really like the new format (I call it the film strip...not a movie exactly...but different than the typical wall of text.)

I don't have any special graphics skills. I am just another guy.


 * Can maybe help with writing or content (I think we should make it very direct and not use Wiki pompous language...I feel when Wiki does that it is offputting and sort of a defense to make us look more scholarly and more about impressing fellow Wikians than about helping the readers...and readers come first with me...and I am old enough, confident enough not to want to be officious).


 * Other places, I'm just another pair of hands...


 * I do find the Graphics Lab to be excellent at improving graphics and have some great relations with great peoploe over there (Fallschirmjaeger, MaterialScientist, etc. etc.). They can brush stuff up.  I think they are a bit more on the actual graphics themselves than section to section organization.  Think we need to figure out the content (like is it 6 slides or 15, which ones, etc.)  But they can definitely clean up graphics.  A lot of times they are really good at tangential wikiformatting like tables and the like.


 * Cool project! And very nice of you to work with TP on it!!!

TCO (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This is kinda tangential, but check this out for a cool format (I'm NOT saying ours should be anything like this...just it was creative and communicated well) and was an act of bravery in a way to do something so different from the standard military death by Powerpoint. I know people who knew the author (he died in combat).

stick figure Powerpoint

TCO (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC
Really nice job putting together the data in the FA RfC, I found it a very interesting read. I think an RfC is definitely the way to go, we'll get there eventually. :) --Elonka 22:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yogo reshoot
Your attention is requested here: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates. Pumpkin Sky  talk  23:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

resource request
Hi TCO,

I've uploaded the paper on the early history of hydrofluoric acid that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find a link at that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You guys rock!TCO (Reviews needed) 20:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

MOS discussion that may be of interest
Because of your previous input on various iterations of the debate about the lower-casing vs. capitalization of the common names of animals (domestic cat, blue whale vs. Domestic Cat, Blue Whale), you may be interested in this thread proposing key points that should be addressed by the guidelines: WT:Manual of Style. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 05:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Membrane cell for chloralkali production
I purely nommed this one. Not taking credit. Not collaboration, by me. TCO (Reviews needed) 15:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI
You know the drill, notifying:   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yogo reshoot 2
Talk:Yogo_sapphire for new ones. These are much better if I can say so myself. Input appreciated. Pumpkin Sky  talk  01:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Wifione  Message 20:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The E=mc² Barnstar

 * Thanks man. You did the work yourself and that thing was a huge achievement.  Very important article. And a tricky one with the combination of science and history and the breadth of the program.TCO (Reviews needed) 13:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You were a great help. I would have awarded this at the time, but you were on a wiki-break of sorts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Apology
I apologize for the vulgar rant that I made in November to Kiefer Wolfowitz. I was angry about the site in general and wrongly made a statement that demeaned all women. I do support women editing on Wikipedia. Those here now and new ones. They should be able to do so without seeing remarks like mine. (No diff, on purpose.)

TCO (Reviews needed) 03:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

VA numbers
I have made an annual update of the status of Vital articles, and written a short analysis, which relates a bit to your November post at FAC. Thought you'd might want to have a look. Lampman (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and good job, man!
Kudos, man. Nice work. And fully support your analyses. Including differences with my report. That is science in learning! Adding in the 2011 data point very informative.

Yeah, GA is a success story. And I'm glad that GA is around to push FA (and vice versa). Believe trying different systems allows more ways to succeed and learn.

For instance GAs have more impact numerically. And in some sense (to a casual reader), an average GA may not be that different on the surface from an average FA. Certainly, I'm often impressed by GAs I see. They tend to have lenght (if on a substantive topic). On the surface, they seem polished and have formatted refs and all that (not at the FA standard, but at the casual looking at an article standard, are good). I think FA, there is more of a tendancy to judge their program byn not wanting a single failure. A very QA department, safety officer mindset. And of course, the intensity of the reviewing (number of people, higher standard, delegate supervision, etc.) makes that happen more. Still, if you judge not by the worst failures ("few bad apples", and of course single person review will make more of those in GA) but by the average representative, GA is quite respectable. Still not as good as FA, but "good".

Effect of the sweeps seems likely (as you noted) and impact on the VAs from a few years ago. You can probably see the sweeps having an impact on the numerics of GA production as well (was a big dip in yearly production one year, but now well recovered from). Would have to check the dates and all that to see if it is the reason, but I bet it is. It is good to see that VA GAs or GA VAs (whatevaz!) have recovered.

Aenecdotal, but analagous, take a look at this back of the envelope look at Project Element:. It's a simple analysis and just one year look, etc. etc. But it kinda shows what a member told me before: "I can dream of the whole table being GA and not just my grandchildren to see it". OTOH, with FA, he might well be (literally) dead before that gets there. So he needs to make sure to procreate and make the sons and daughters do so also! Or I quess the same sort of religious faith that could motivate 15th century villagers to work on a cathedral that would not serve parishoners until 100 years later! So really, GA is sort of a Godsend. (pun intended!)

GA does have existing pretty obscure tendancies. (the submarines, the individual TV episodes, etc.) But because it is so strong numerically, it is starting to mean more than FA for VAs...apparently. I think this will be even more the case in the future.

I saw a dramatic change in FA relevance compared to a much slighter GA plunge into irrelevance. I saw FA median drop from 3300 hits/month (over all years) to 900. GAs I saw drop from 900 to 600. The FA sample had a very large sample size (294 data points for 2011, ~50 for all years). So I think the FA effect is "real". Ettrig did an independent resample and did year by year and with (~400 data points) and he saw a similar pattern. And the Louis subjective (but blind to year) study saw the same thing. So it's NAILED. I would bet huge money that even a full survey of all 4000 FAs shows that the FA dropoff story is true (just too huge of an effect and too many ways independantly tested).

Really what we are looking at is a future with FAs that are hurricanes, extremely obscure species (sometimes one science paper only on the species), bishops from 1100, etc. Very few Fluorines or Giraffes or Lions or Manhattan Projects or Nixons in the future. This will start to be reflected on the main page. Even now there is criticism of the very obscure topics for TFAs. But in the future, when the old bank is run out, it will be almost all topics, the reader has never heard of...in that super prominent spot of the main page. The problem is even if you wanted to prioritice importance for TFAs (vice the huge current weighting for anniversaries), you would not really have the sample to choose from to do so.

The change in GAs was much smaller overall and my sample size was smaller (especially the recent GA sample). It's still my Bayesian guess that GAs have gotten slightly more irrelevant. But it was more quick and dirty analysis than the FA look. It just was (small sample for recent GAs, I just did not grab as many points).

Basically to very much oversimplify it, but make a story, I think one can say that FAs have dropped to near the relevance of GAs (they used to be much higher) and that since we make soooo many more GAs, GA will start having much more of an impact on things like Vital Article program, on Project Element, etc.

Probably just more looking at GA in general would be interesting. Don't know as much about that program, but it is an important one. Would be interesting to brainstorm a set of hypotheses or list of analyses or some data mining approach to learn things with (if we are really anal, we could do a split and data mine and then confirm with the other half...I doubt that is needed, though with the huge degrees of freedom). I really don't have a feel for that program (never even wrote a GA or reviewed one) so it would be more exploratory to even brainstorm over what might be interesting to learn/test. But...probably worthwhile!

Again, kudos. Sorry for the long reply, but I'm glad of your analysis!

TCO (Reviews needed) 00:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sir, that is the most insane thing I have ever read in my life. And I would have you know that right now I am drunk out of my scull. Yours sincerely, mr. Lampman. Lampman (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Latest pear and purple Yogo sapphire photos
See Talk:Yogo_sapphire. Hope you think they're better, and just in time for the Great Wiki Blackout of jan 2012! Pumpkin Sky  talk  01:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Press pass
Hey TCO,

Haven't really followed the discussions you've been having in full, but just wondered where you got to with the press pass thing? Was at the Australian Open today and was amazed and outraged when the guys searching bags told me I wasn't able to take my camera in because it had a lens of greater focal length than 200mm (I only had my 400mm) which is deemed to be "professional" and contraband. Had to leave it all in the cloak room and missed a great opportunity to get some good shots of some pretty high profile players... --Fir0002 11:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Fir. I really think we just need to start doing it, or trying to do it.  If you are going to another competition, just apply for press privilege.  (search the website or call the athletic federation or whatever.)  This fellow (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User_talk:Brian_McNeil) may be able to help by writing a letter for you in addition to your application.  He seems more inclined to help Aussies, but since you are one, that works great.  If he can't help, we should inquire with GLAM.  I would like to get some WMF help eventually, but I think we need to bootstrap something up ourselves before they get interested.TCO (Reviews needed) 14:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Fluorine
I just compared what happened between before your later wave of the interest and now. Wow. I mean, I'm amazed. Also by the number of letters you typed in my talkpage, after reading which I decided I have an opinion of the approximately same number of them. But I can't write long (which is rather bad sometimes). Anyway, not now. I'm so busy IRL (it's getting hard to handle, but I'm getting through) so I need a few days before I have enough time to write a long reply. Have no free half an hour. But maybe Wednesday (I'll try earlier).

Also, sorry for my bad memory. Ullman:pdf It is the "F" file (in the sense it all the articles starting with the letter "F"). Not saying goodbye,R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pdfs. Makes me feel better to see these. Good stuff. I skimmed them, but FWIW my impressions.

1. Fluorine gas:  not a lot extra, except we can cite it for the "reacts with water" and I think we should make a small comment (sentence or even phrase) somewhere noting use of Monel as containment. And wikilinking that alloy. All the stuff about the intricate details of the different electrodes in different cell designs is overkill for us. Couple little things wrong in article (like KrF4). No biggie, great article. Just kind of cool that we know the topic well enough to find issues even with a very good review article.

2. Inorganic fluorides:  lot of cool stuff, including the HF-H2O eutectics, but not needed for our article.

3. Organic fluorides: Nothing jumped out that was missing. That article covers a lot of classes of small molecules and preparation methods, but would be overkill for us.

4. Fluoropolymers: good stuff but way more detail than we need. Seems that DD remains world's main producers of FP (and first developer of several), so the implicit prominence of DD in brand names, history, etc. is not overemphasis. Will add a comment on cross linking for the fluoroelastomers. Article backs up that you have to have a mixture, but also must have cross-linking.

TCO (Reviews needed) 03:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought the whole thing would be longer. Maybe 'cause I cut the later half, though.

Sorry now that you're almost gone (I got ya right? At least, the whole thing reads so... ). Forget it. Just my point is, where the things turn to shit, I screw this. Often unsatisfied but fine. Let them drown in the manure they speak. This is how I treat things that are not essential for my life. Wiki is great, but I would be fine without another picture. Without another stub. Whatever. I got that this is an easier way out long ago, but only now realize it (do it). Not in the sense parents teach kids but close to it, more... profound. Hope you get it.

You're right. This is Herculean. The worst part of this, I just don't have enough time. The further, the less time. You can see my later contributions. (Just promethium, which I did after I'd read the Pm part of the Tc/Pm/At/Fr book, but writing is different from source-checking. Not to mention that the first half of January is the time when I have time. I could even haunt for a plus, but lost time. Often Wiki is on standby (even with minor edits) but rarely active)). And Feb/March are gonna be even worse. Damn, I hate it. But the life requires me to and I'm in. Though, I do get your point. And it makes sense. Too sorry that by myself, I'll need a year even if started now. Thanks god, most book refs I added are from Google books. But the worse part are the previous links, links before me and not by me. I know I saw no less than a half of 250 (wow). But I also didn't see up to 125.

You're such a... capitalist. (No shame in it, just a thought... I generally share the position of doing too much for nothing is not worth it). I'll also read the Hounshell DuPont R&D history book.. Also thanks for the other links. And the notes... I'll have them in mind. Once even will "do." It'll be alright.

The only thing about images I think we maybe need other inorganic compounds images. NaF is just the simplest possible salt. This is the stupid part, but also the sweet part. This is why I just said "maybe." And bismuth... I'm just thinking we could move it to metals, where it makes more sense. I just figured out of a way. The images you mentioned are in. And I want to keep the dolphin.

And after getting your point, I'm not sure I'm the right one. I mean I maybe won't take the scissors or whatever I thought. Maybe, though.

The further... I had (and have) a lot to say, but it's so far away in the future. I don't know even if I make it to the PR before the summer (I know what it sounds like, there's much much much time before the summer; I hope I'm dramatizing). I'm stopping myself here. Thanks for your long text. A nice "road map," which which is gonna be extremely useful.

Again, sorry to have you out. I really wish not to.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice note. Means a lot. Especially from a tough Soviet! Take care with busy life and family and work and all. You are a sharp guy and a hard worker and I'm sure good things will come for you.

I feel guilty for making this article such an ordeal for you. Will help you get the refs checked. It won't be that bad. :-) I can start the PR too (I think the dwindling reserves of my force of personality will still get that done.)  I prefer to stay out of any FAC campaign.  I do want you to get the star and the Project Element peeps to have another "Oxygen}".  Please don't get involved in my wars with them, but I just can't be your wingman in there.  I think if you get Mav to help you with the FAC campaign (responding to crits, driving reviewers [I do have a good essay on this ;)]), it can get done. He prevailed with O and Cf.

After that, I really should take a break. Both disatisfaction with the peeps here and just better for me to do things that really help me and even others more tangibly, more economically.

Thanks for letting the cute dolphin live. Wouldn't kill me to see it go and be blank space, but not hurting anything either.

I really think we have enought structural diagrams of fluorides, man. (and we are going to get just a couple more drug ones). I thought about CaF2 structure instead of NaF, but we already have a picture of the mineral (seemed like overkill). I DO like how we can show the concept of isoelectronic size comparison (in passing). Just would like to slim down the caption text a bit, but I like the second dead bird with one stone, achieved. IOW let NaF live please. We have enough weird pictures like with Bi chains and all. One simple to understand one is OK. And I was just reading Cotton. He makes same point as Greenwood that really, other than charge F- and O-- are very similar. So CaO and NaF have same structure. It is the other halides that are more funky. Fluoride in ionic compounds is just little hard negative balls. All that said, I don't care that much (really) if you change to antoehr picture (or even kill it with no replacement). I just liked the teaching point with isoelectronic.

I sort of like uncovering and showing the UF6 as well...since I think reader will be very intrigued by the deadliness of the substance (shown in sealed tube, he knows bombs and nuclear fuel come from it, etc.) and it is an important fluoride and the sealed tube helps fit in the story of volatility and such. I would even favor keeping it over keeping NaF, if you wanted to vote one off the island.

There may be one more cool photo coming in (probably down in organic compounds, but perhaps in liquid breathing) showing a tri-layer water-perfluorocarbon-oil.

Moving Bi would be great really. Will fit well into the discussion of metal halides and take out an exception in the pnictogen discussion. I can move it in text and such. I really don't care where we draw the line on metal-nonmetal and was ready to defend you in any organization against DS or his ilk. I loved how you did the explanatory note and had a little picture of the table in it and all!

TCO (Reviews needed) 17:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(this title is of no value, just to make it writing easier-- That's why so small)
Hope so :)

Thanks for your intentions, man. With your help, it'll be faster. Not just your work, but the fact you're also whipping me up. After having realized the possibility of you out, I decided to finally get in there. Especially with that, it does not hurt me in any way (in Wiki). I'm in.

A couple of questions about thew reference check (had more). 1) Also will do this. Where can I start (not to overlap you)? 2) How can the progress be tracked? How can I show you I checked it? 3) How do you show the ones you need? Just the talkpage? IMHO, there should be (just in case) another way, where you can bump 20 or 30.

Gotcha now. With both NaF and UF6. The original intention was not less or more, but others. But after having read your explanation, I'm fine. Not surrendering to your opinion 'cause of politeness, but agreeing. I've noted you're great at explaining something to others. I feel something sometimes, but can't express out, and just mention that and center on anything less important. You're direct.

Also, about moving Bi. I'll take Po in as well and in minutes will ask the Graphic Lab to recolor the two. Will also add a sentence or two on PoF6 among metals. Yours,R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * See this page. I propose we work in sections.  You from the top (bagging you with the infobox!)  Me from the bottom.  We can just make sections on that working page to list status, etc.  For instance, if I check the last section and find 80% of the refs and have 20% missing, I would note which ones missing.  Then either I track them down myself or you help.  And same in reverse.  Also, if I find a place missing a needed citation, I will either track it down at the time or at least add a  in text if it is too hard for me.  (I had looked at doing it by numbers, but it is too tricky.  I think if we do it by sections, it is a little easier to track and also to feel progress...and to keep mind on the gestalt of the content).TCO (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Graphics kerfuffle
TCO please don't be put off by the puzzling kerfuffle that arose about your recent graphics request and see my final comment on the matter here. Please also feel free to post as many requests or questions as you would like to without fear of being "hated" for doing so. Best. Centpacrr (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am fine, man. I am really used to joking with people like JBarta.  I always get great help from graphics and have found them very willing to let me have it my way (although I do like to hear the objections, I have value in that)!  Please don't get upset either.  It is all OK.  At least all 3 of us care about the images.  Lots of article writers don't even know about the graphics lab!TCO (Reviews needed) 00:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, you asked for the "neutral background" version that I created for you because it makes the best fit for the way you are using it in his article. You requested it so that what is being illustrated (and the purpose of this image is to be an "illustration", not a "picture") is not lost in the thumbnail version on the article page. Unfortunately several other editors have decided to again "second guess" you and reverted it to the original image. Since this is your illustration that you placed in this article, I have asked them to let you decide how you want to use it to illustrate the point you are making instead of their constantly second guessing what it is for. I have also again asked them to show a little good faith in your judgement or they are just going to drive you and others away from asking for help. Entirely too much kerfuffle has been made about this so I have asked all others to give it a rest and let you decide what you want to use and respect your decision. You now have a variety of versions to pick from, and once you do the others should leave it at that instead of trying to constantly impose their personal views on your original work. I personally do not intend to do anything further on this particular illustration and I don't see why anybody else except you should do so either. Centpacrr (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right, man. THANKS!  TCO (Reviews needed) 03:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

fluorine piping in the lab
FYI, a couple other editors decided to whip up a couple images for you. You might find them worth a look. (It's almost as if they didn't care what I thought. They were going to do their thing anyway. Shocking I tell you, just shocking!) – JBarta (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Perfluorinated replacements
I got a copy of this as a .pdf file. I can send it as an email attachment if I knew your address. You can use the email function on here to let me know where to send it.  Them From  Space  21:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment/F&aelig;
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:F&aelig;. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Content, contributor, etc.
Not helpful, my friend. Take the high road, please. 28bytes (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

making tables the easy way?
Additionally, see Tools/Editing_tools.  Chzz  ► 08:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Correction regarding ANI thread
Was reading through the last couple of comments in the ANI thread I started last night. You said Sandy who loves to defend Mallman or Ceoil has taken to using the run to ANI like it was going out of style. That is not correct here. I was the one that started the ANI thread. If anyone went running to ANI it was me. I notified Lecen and Sandy, which is why they turned up. Franamax is quite right to say that I could, maybe should have blocked Lecen immediately, but I'm going to respond on that point on his talk page. What I don't want it for discussion to restart about all this (Manning did a good job of calming things down), so if you must respond to this post, please don't inflame things. Carcharoth (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi TCO,
 * Somebody writing that SG needs a boyfriend---or a dog (although she might it it)---has crossed a line, and gets blocked. All they need to do to be reinstated is to promise to remove the PA (based on sex, etc.) and pledge to avoid the appearance of sexism again.
 * I was rather slow to understand that there an increasing conflict had been arising between the forces of you and Wehwalt on the one hand and SG et alia on the other. I didn't understand why she was so angry with you, when I defended you before.
 * Now, older and even more world weary, I sincerely wish that you and she avoid further conflict, and try to say a good word, once in a while, to restore normal relations.
 * In the past, you have given me good advice, even incommunicado, and I hope you know of my good will towards you.
 * Warm regards, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Carch your "minor correction" does not address that I phrased it as a general pattern. (and I think taunting someone into a rant and than watching the block unfold is a part of the pattern).  Not sure if you were trying to reach me or just wanted a rebuttal for the record (felt more the latter).  Well if the latter, ANI is thataway...not here.


 * Kief, do what you think is right. I'm fine if you disagree with me or with Lecen.  You're allowed to be...eh...wrong.  ;-)  But going on his page was unwise given his mood.  And just kinda lame given your other remarks about the dispute and the difference of opinion in characterizing his remarks.  Give the man some space at least.  (And I really don't want to get more into the nits, but Sandy has brought her dog up herself on site...and she's talked about people's balls or RFA admins not getting laid or just trashed people in general all over the site in side chats.  Lecen's main point on her attackdogged battleground method was relevant regardless if he said boyfriend or anything like that.  [And believe me it is possible to be MUCH more over the line.]  The bottom line is Sandy's behavior cross-site is MEAN.  She's a bully.)


 * All: don't want more comments on this at my talk page.  Lecen is not a thug like TCO (probably a good little liberal) and definitely not a POV pusher or vandal.  You are losing real good new contributors and the old Bisho-Giano-Risker-Geogre-Sandy axis has no production anyway.  The "axis" defending unreferenced FAs at FAR and spending months whinging about process and zero effort on going to the library and opening books and citing them (tm Moni) really opened my eyes to the dynamic.  Only one worth a damn in there is Malleus.  Where is Garrondo?  Are you in danger of losing Wehwalt and Ed (and they speak for themselves...we don't have a Karl Rove conspiracy and I'm not urging them to do so...Wehwalt loves his FAs.)


 * Why don't you have more chemists writing FAs? Grad student or even working Ph.D.s are not that hard to find (and a lot off site exist).  But we are 10 years into this thing and still have incredibly incomplete content on incredibly high Google pages (important to industry and schoolchildren AND Jimmy's little African kids).  And even pretty easy to write pages in some cases.    But we have fucking donut hole effort to bring people in and improve output.  Just 4 year old+ battle lines and defense of a few cronies.


 * And shyeah...I am making a rebuttal and closing discussion. But it's my dojo.  And it's not because I can't "hang" with the Internet debate.  It's because I really, really don't want to.  I've made my point.  You've got the entire rest of the site to make your points.  I can completely live with that and don't need to re-re-re-rebut.


 * Lecen may write too long articles on obscure royalty...but he's a good man. Not a mean guy.  If he leaves, the site is the poorer for losing the production.  Not the better for having lost an irritant, someone who would not "heel".  I only hope the guy can get his composure, as just a normal human being, and put the shit behind him and not concern himself about some cackling clique.TCO (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hej TCO!
 * It is your dojo, but I think that you and L both underestimate my "control"—and L my sincerity. I did want to block him, but I clearly stated that he could do the usual community service to get back to editing. I am sorry that he regarded me as duplicitous, but I tend to be hard-core on Strunk & White and on apparent sexist insults.


 * You are right about Malleus but I am right to mention you as another great editor. Malleus and you provided invaluable advice and great questions for the article on the Shapley–Folkman lemma. As civilians, you two provided the most reliable comments addressing accessibility to the educated public, from which the mathematicians and economists mutated long ago.
 * Cheers, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I was going to cuff you again, for having the "more gruel" bravery to post... but the grasshopper edit summary made me literally LOL. :)  Which is good.  Let's let it go.  We might even be more in alignment than not in alignment...on some abstract algebra meta level.  Give L man some space though.  Whatever you think, not the time for any more posts on his page to explain/clarify/etc. yourself.  If we lose him, I will be very sad.TCO (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Fluorine pharmaceuticals
I have a couple of the articles you're looking for - just let me know your email address or email me through the link on my talk page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

FA Proposal
I just noticed your request for comment about electing FA leaders. I thought I'd let you know that I heartily support your idea; your arguments make a good deal of sense. It's a shame that I didn't notice until after the poll had closed. You could have used some more support. Inter change  able | talk to me  00:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks man. I have seen your page before, when searching around Wiki.  Like the graphic with the FA versus non FA content.  Nice stuff.

undelete vol deleted page
Please undelete

User:TCO/EditCounterOptIn.js

(was deleted at my request before)

TCO (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * --Chris (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Chris! TCO (talk) 08:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

FA report question
Hi TCO, I'm not actually sure if I've interacted with you before, other than that I've seen your name around FAC from time to time. I was away for a couple of months and just now got around to reading your report about Featured Articles. I didn't really read the ensuing kerfuffle, so I apologize if I'm asking something that's already been asked. I have sort of a methodology question because something you wrote about intersects with my own thoughts about FAC and my experience as an FAC delegate.

Specifically: How do you know when FAC reviewers have reviewed content?

I actually have no idea how many FACs I've reviewed—it feels like hundreds but maybe it's more. I do believe I've provided a substantive review on almost all of them, but going back, I can think of very few times where I've said, "I reviewed the content and I think it's comprehensive." I only say something if it's not. That's my general process... I only call out things that I think are wrong. So, if the content is good and the article only has prose and style problems, that's all I'd mention. But, how does that affect the data you collected? It seems that you equated "didn't mention content" with "didn't review content" and that's what I'm trying to come to grips with. I wonder if I'm doing the delegates and writers a disservice by not listing what I think is "right" with the article.

Some of your other stuff was interesting to read. Vital articles are really difficult to work on. I wrote the bulk of what's at musical instrument and guess what... I haven't done substantive work on it in months, and I still get daily hate mail about my choice of sources. Not worth the trouble, really. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

reply
Thanks for reading the document (easier if you print it!) and commenting, Andy. Srsly.

The major issues with FAC are more about low output and the concentration (really dramatic lately) on low view topics. Last year's median FA had 1000 views per month. The bank as a whole had a median of 3000. It really went off a cliff 2 years ago. And even 3000 is pretty low compared to high importance or VA topics. (It's actually my threshold for "should I care". Arbitrary perhaps, but we learn by forcing ourselves to come up or think about thumbrules.)  For instance, just a few days ago, I did a look at all the wikilinked topics in the lead and first section of Fluorine and it was amazing how many key articles (e.g. Electronegativity) which were B class and 10,000+ views per month. Seemed like over half, but I didn't compile it, was just playing around.

The other problem is no ideas/experimentation for the process or outreach. Just because "the page" is shaped the way it is now, does not mean that is the only system. Moses did not come down with a tablet that said FAC must be on the same page, sections are not allowed in reviews, etc. Every other business enterprise considers how changing processes might help themselves get more work done! Or another thing...sounding plaintive notes on FAC talk "please review" is not deepening the pool of people involved...is whackamole really, using the same "regulars". If Malleus reviews more, he's writing less. Or if he copyedits more, he's reviewing less. There needs to be more thought of how to "change the game". Not just beat head against same wall harder. Not fight the wars of years ago.

So, I think the content thing is much more of a nuance and "one more analysis I did" than the main finding of that "manic" coupla weeks of pushing stats.grok.se and Exceling and PPTing. ;-) Content is done pretty decent on the substantive topics.  IOW, yeah, I do think there's something slightly off in FAC reviewing, BUT finding one more thing to tighten up on is not the path to improvement for overall Wiki.  The issue is output, not quality control.  (and value of the output in viewership.)

I'm glad you've reviewed hundreds of articles. I'm sure you have helped a lot of people by doing so. Kudos. Seriously. I would expect you have learned a lot from the time spent. Maybe breaking it down into lessons learned (what works, doesn't, what's expected, unexpected insights, etc.) in an essay would be powerful.

If the content was reviewed, sat, with zero comment (no engagement/crits to show it was being looked, nor a statement "checked it"), then yes I undercount the extent of content examination.

I do think an outsider looking at the process is reasonable in saying that content is not always focussed on. If something is getting pushed, there should be signs of it. (For one thing, Wikipedians are not perfect judges, there would be at least bumbling comments of "why did we not cover that" or "why is source X used instead of source Y". And I think if you look at how Carch reviews or the like, you see evidence of engagement into the topic.  Also, if you look at how a paper gets reviewed for an academic journal.)  Forget it being newbie TCO, or TCO agitator or whatever...but imagine if we had 5 journal editors or 5 subject matter experts or the like review 20 FACs. What would they say on content examination?

I do think some statement is helpful.. to delegates, to other reviewers...heck even to yourself (to concentrate your mind) if something checks sat. It actually takes very, very little time to do so. Much less than the time spent reading, parsing, and writing up crits on the piece itself. And I have found that if it is being pushed often you find something (at least to the extent of a question) to raise about the content. I have not reviewed hundreds of Wiki FAs, but I'm a grownup and have written papers at work and in academia and the like, including collaboratively. So, while not some stud or anything, I do have a reasonable man's experience. It's also a small nuance, but I think some comment (the way a peer review in the real world would have) on the overall objective and what was done/not done well is helpful and appropriate feedback to the author who has spent so much time. I mean the rules of normal work processes and human nature on feedback have not changed becayse we are in Wiki instead of in the work world.

Yes, working on Musical Instrument is harder than something very obscure. That said, the social rewards being the same for work that does less benefit, seems like part of the problem. And it's also important to step back and look at the overall FA enterprise and see what it is accomplishing. In the extreme limit if we had FAs that no one read, would the program be healthy? Would it be serving the general Internet audience? Or just become an insular circle? Not saying we are completely there. It is a spectrum. But you can follow the thought experiment. And see the danger. (Or turned around, the opportunity!)

Glad you are OK. Some people were worried about your health. Hope it was not me that drove you off in March. If you got some workouts and sunshine and time away from the monitor, good for you.

TCO (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

P.s. I don't know where your own head is at, or what you are thinking or trying to think about in terms of FA. And it DOES NOT have to be what I think! but if you are thinking about things...that is good, man. Obviously you have seen a lot of things go down over the 100s of reviews and learned a lot of experience. I highly doubt the system is optimized, so I hope consideration of change and heck actual experimentation (not endless debate) are embraced going forward.

P.s.s. I wrote an essay (see user page) that kinda summarizes/intros the PPT. Read past a little bit of the snark or kerfuffle please. The section at the end has some of the common crits and my rejoinders. Obviously I had control of the presentation, so take that with NaCl. But there might be a couple nuggets of insight in that end section.

Again, take care, man!


 * Thanks for the thoughtful reply. It definitely provides a lot of food for thought. I'll have some more thoughts to share soon, but in the mean time I wanted to offer something for you to think about. Consider how the FA process mirrors real-world academia. Unsurprising, considering that the process is probably frequented by a lot of academics. The academic world seems masturbatory to a lot of people: academics train each other, review each other's work, pat each other on the back, and put honorifics on each other's names. I'm not sure what country you live in, but ever try applying to a doctoral program? You can't get in the club unless someone already in there is interested in working with you, and/or you share research interests with some faculty member. Their research interests are rarely, shall we say, mainstream, or of even middling visibility to society as a whole. But they are hugely important to some cross-section of academics.


 * So to the outsider, academia looks self-serving, self-perpetuating, and inaccessible. Sound familiar? People do call for reforms, and gradually the old farts in tweed jackets die off and new blood comes in. Some of the new blood subscribes to the system, but some doesn't. So things change, albeit at a sometimes-imperceptible pace. I wonder what lessons we can learn from academia that could be applied to the FA process. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Interpolating: I think there is a little more to be said in this debate:-
 * We need to understand the distinctions between the concepts of "traffic" (daily views), "readership" (the numbers of viewers that actually read the article), "popularity" and "importance".
 * It is impossible to deduce actual readership from daily viewings. At best the former is only a rough guide to the latter. The article may be a homework and revision magnet for relatively small groups of students who revisit it time and time again; or its daily activity may be swollen by vadalism and reverts; or its title may draw people in on false assumptions about its actual content.
 * Neither can the popularity (defined here as "popular appeal") of the article be divined from daily viewings, for the same reasons.
 * Popularity and importance are very different concepts. Some articles may be said to be universally important because of the worldwide significance of their subjects, but the majority are only important within their defined topic area. Electronegativity, for example, may be highly important in the field of the physical sciences, but 95 percent of the encyclopedia's readers have, I am sure, no knowledge of or interest in it. Generally, the relative importance of a subject in its topic area can best be decided by those with knowledge of the area; it cannot be deduced from viewing figures. In my own area of knowledge, Giuseppe Verdi is a much more popular composer than Claudio Monteverdi, and daily viewings seem to confirm this. Yet historically the latter is arguably by far the more important, as one of the founding fathers of the genre.
 * In short, page view statistics is far too crude an instrument to be used as a means for  reforming the featured article process.   It is a matter of  concern that the trend in recent FA promotions has  been towards marginal subjects, but there are reasons for that which are outside the scope of the FA process. Wikipedia sets very low standards of "notability" and these are simply risible in some Wikiprojects ; Wikipedia disparages  expertise in favour of "anyone can edit", and thereby discourages the best editors from working on the most significant articles. And of course, Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and its foot soldiers cannot be ordered to work on what they don't wish. Most of all this I am sure you have heard before. I suspect, as Andy hints above, that reform in the FA process will evolve in small increments rather than coups d'état or declarations of war against the process and the people who run it, and will be all the better for that. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, but would add that even if page view information is regarded as useful, the way that such statistics are analysed and presented is crucial. Here are two issues related to this.
 * Why use median page views instead of mean page views? The answer is that the mean is unstable with respect to sampling error: if you happen to include an article with millions of hits in your sample, it will dominate the mean. However, that pragmatic reason for ignoring the mean provides absolutely no justification for attaching significance to the median. Without a model for the distribution being sampled, it is completely unclear what information the median provides. I have suggested elsewhere that the geometric mean may be more appropriate here, but even then, the question is: what exactly does this measure?
 * Why the 3000 hits per month cutoff? If you change the cutoff, you change the results, quite drastically in fact. Page views have a huge tail, with most articles receiving less than a few hundred hits per month. Raising the cutoff from a few hundred has no great effect on the number of articles below the cutoff, but the number of FAs below the cutoff is greatly affected as the cutoff increases. Any analysis based on a given cutoff might have quite different results if the cutoff were changed. In my view, 3000 hits per month is way too high, but irrespective of that, the conclusions you draw depend crucially on the cutoff you use.
 * As one final comment, for the benefit of editors like User:Laser brain, who are catching up: one of the many fundamental flaws in TCOs analysis is that he targets FA with regard to an issue that FA is completely unable to address. Even disregarding the tail of a few million articles with marginal numbers of hits, there are still hundreds of thousands of articles that readers are interested in, many of them so-called vital articles (of varying degrees). FA handles about 30 articles a month, at most 50. An optimistic attempt to improve throughput would probably still fall well short of 1000 articles per year and would scarcely make a dent in the problem in the next 50 years.
 * It is like trying to dig a tunnel with pick and shovel, when what you need is dynamite or a tunnel boring machine. Improving the fitness of the navvies will only go so far, and is not going to solve the underlying problem. Geometry guy 00:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Brian: See my essay and Methodology-1 and Confusion-1 in the re-rebuttals section. Yeah, understanding readership behavior at even deeper levels is interesting, but it doesn't change the dynamic of viewership versus non viewership consideration. What we are doing now is considering an article as the unit of measurement. Saying that viewer weighting is not completely perfect misses the boat. It's like saying X is not as good as Y or Z, so let's go back to A. Or, evaluating a corportate M&A eforrt based on number of deals instead of total revenue purchased because total EBITDA (or even total NPV) would be better.

G-guy:

1. Yeah, the median versus mean flaw is fucking huge in terms of quantititave analysis (how bad are things). Mean is what you want to compare the populations. Directionality of the story is not going to change with a survey rather than sample and if you compare means though (badness will not reverse, I will Bayesian bet some serious cash on that). Nor really will strategic implications (people who hate this story, will still hate it; would still hate it even if the mean differences were more extreme (they won't be, they will be [generally] more moderate, but still huge, really, in terms of actual impact). There are also some snippets to consider, also, that don't have the median issue.  The Gorbati study was a 50,000 article sample (big enough for large numbers to work even with power law distribtion).  The 2011 FA writer segmentation was a survey.  The Luois assessment looked at the whole bank, etc.

2. We could do a thought experiment and sketch out a method of determining what the 50% probability of "heard of it is". Yeah, I invented a thumbrule (3000), but you could take it further in terms of the process of driving from purely qualitiative further into semi-quantitative land (and run the thought experiment). And, it's not going to be a few hundred, man! The average person (define how you like, average Wikian, average reader, etc) has not heard of 50% of the Ucu mice or the Ian Rose RAAF general officers. Lucky if he has heard of one! Or you could invent your own thumbrule and even try to think about reasons why a different choice is justified (I'm not saying to see what answers you got, but to try to think through the problem a priori.) And do a sensitivity analysis on the impact (feel free, don't give me work though.)

3. In a resource constrained situation, you are much, much better off in terms of Featuring total viewership to do the Garrando strategy than the Uca strategy. Mostly in terms of a person's time as well as in terms of "the page" (although that is a gawdawful system that they let "the page" drive so much). If we set up a competition or paid money or what have you, not a doubt in my mind that concentrating on 50,000+ articles obliterates concentrating on 500- articles. (and we haven't even included the effect of translations, but Garrando has several translations and I've even had one. Is kind of neat to see an FA translated, check out Painted Turtle in French.)  I think Malleus a long time ago made a comment that the WMF should just pay some editors to write the VAs. The interesting thing about the comment is that he is implicitly saying that this is what should be the priority (or that this is the most efficient use of X hours of paid writing time). He didn't say, have the WMF pay for more 500 hit articles to get written. There's a hidden assumption in his remark of what he values, even as he has in other places stuck up for the oddity articles.

4. You turned me into the moderator board (ANI) and also made some comments about how I think I'm smart or some eeful external Internet person that needs to be banned (or blocked or whatever you people call it). I don't think I've even interacted with you. I want you not to post on my page any more (please understand that as an order). Feel free to write any corrections, rebuttals, etc. elsewhere. It is good to have them, and I know how it must bug you if you think I'm wrong or that people don't know how I'm wrong and you are the man to show it. But don't bug me, here.)

TCO (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Gray Fossil Site images

 * Cool pix! Add them to the page as soon as you can. I'm not a paleontologist, but I know the one who directs the dig at Pipe Creek Sinkhole in Indiana.  Writing the Pipe Creek article is how I stumbled on the info about the site in Tennessee.  Thanks!  -- Cuppysfriend (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Done, man. check it out and feel to move around or remove some or whatever.TCO (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sport, Press Passes and stuff.
Just bringing Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates to your attention. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Tried to answer, but to be honest, this stuff is out of my league. Still, I hope it helps. Cheers! CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 06:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for standing for me at the ANI. That was great and I know the risks you ran because of that. Saying the truth is dangerous nowadays. I was blocked for a week for having made a joke to a third party exactly because I ignored the person who was harassing me. " Battleground mentality", they claimed. Where, I have no idea. Again, thank you very much, TCO. --Lecen (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Your welcome.TCO (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing
Many years ago I wrote a computer program that displayed a periodic table colored by state (gas/liquid/solid). It was animated and it started at zero kelvin (everything colored "solid" of course) and increased the temperature until all elements' boiling points were exceeded. I could probably redo it as an animated GIF without too much trouble; if you can think of any pages that would benefit from such an image in your chemistry article travels, ping me and I'll see what I can do. (Possibly something listed here? I dunno.) 28bytes (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds really flipping cool to be honest. I think W is most refractory, no?  If you donate it, I'm sure it will find a use.  Maybe chemical element?TCO (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think people naturally are drawn to the image of the table and using it in modifications as a cool graphic. For instance the colored one by quality gets a lot of attention.TCO (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll toss that on the to-do list, then. 28bytes (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would run it through Featured Pictures as well (needs to be in an article though). There is obviously huge information wrt all the numbers of mp, bp (any sublime).  Make sure you add a reference to the file copy of the image.  Good luck.  I hope it is fun for you and that others appreciate it also.  Never know unless you try, but I'm honestly positive.  A.  It sounds cool.  B.  WE need to try new tricks.  Sometimes they work and catch on or...give other people ideas for other tricks.


 * The original program was written on an Apple II; if I ever find that floppy disk I will probably grab a screenshot of the program in action to put in the Apple II graphics article. If an Apple II can handle all that info (and it did) putting it into a GIF shouldn't be too tricky. (I'm on an Apple II kick at the moment, which is what brought this to mind.) 28bytes (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Apple II? Floppy disk? .. OMG .. you must be older than dirt. lol.  Just kidding 28, I actually remember punch cards - so I guess I'm pretty much an antique to a lot of folks. — Ched :  ?  04:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I pretty much just outed myself as an old fart, didn't I? :) 28bytes (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it similar to and ? (Try dragging the sliders). I was thinking about having a sort of timeline for the solid, liquid and gas ranges of each element. Double sharp (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A very belated response, but... yes, exactly! Thanks for those links. The program I had was like holding down the "+" button on the RSC slider. That page especially is really cool. 28bytes (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Do one with "year isolated" (or discovered). I don't think a gif table form of that has been done yet and it would be pretty interesting. HAve seen linear timelines of it. Would be interesting to see the table starting the "pop in".TCO (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

RE: Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership: Tea


 Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-- Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  06:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

An idea you may be interested in.
Hi there, just to let you know that I'm putting together a proposal at User:SalopianJames/Sandbox/FAC-B proposal that I thought you might find interesting, and I'd appreciate your feedback on it. Thanks, SalopianJames (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for graphical development of page headers
Hey TCO, if you have the time will you take a look at this proposal. I thought I'd take a leaf out of your book. The Pen-y-ghent example is just that, but more generally I'd like to see some kind of css background styles being used to their full potential. nagualdesign (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Fluorine
I just had a look at the fluorine article. It looks fantastic. Many thanks to you and R8R for the hard work. Jon C (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Your welcome. And thank you for bringing  your part to bear.  Great graphics are extremely powerful in making an article more accessible.TCO (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Welcome back! Hope you continue your work from before at WP:ELEM! StringTheory11 03:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We'll see, but thanks for the thought and I hope you are well.TCO (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Painted turtle became FA in ru:wiki
Following your interest in the article, I am glad to update that today it became FA in ru:wiki. Have a nice day. Sir Shurf (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Fluorine in CaF2
The whole article is also available in English! --Stone (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)