User talk:YBG/Archive 3

Wiki etiquette
Thanks! for being so polite while I was stumbling around in Marmite. TheSeven (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Hi YBG, thanks for sharing your thoughts in our discussion on WikiProject Oregon. I guess our work is getting broad enough, that I'm sorry to say your work had not really caught my attention yet…but I see you've been working in a number of areas of Oregon content. Thanks! You said you've been keeping an eye on our project for a while…I hope you decide to join us more formally at some point! Also, thanks for the additional bot suggestion; it's a good idea. -Pete (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Portland demographics
This section formerly had a number of alternatives that I eventually moved to Talk:Portland,_Oregon and then expanded and archived.

Thanks...
...for redoing that trivia section on Willamette Stone. It's not trivial anymore, and I added another reference and a link to 1959 photos of the stone. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Re Template:Adelaide CBD Streets

 * I probably do have them the wrong way round. For some reason I cannot seem to remember which is which. I agree with you anyway. Pleased to see you experimenting. Donama (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed. Nice one. Donama (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

NFL retired numbers
Thank you for the recognition!! I had realised that the main nfl reference cited in the article no longer works; in fact, I replaced that link for another source which lists all the numbers and players honored. This was because the retired jerseys section was supressed from the NFL.com site, I don´t know why. I will continue adding sources as much as I can, thanks ! Fma12 (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of Oregon state symbols/archive1
Hi, are you satisfied with the revisions made, or do you still have any issues with the list? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I just made some more tweaks and commented on the FL nomination page. YBG (talk) 07:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

PSOB reminder..
I posted a bunch of pics of the Portland State Office Building symbols for you- haven't seen a reply. tedder (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Pix on the PCA
I think the article with pictures is more friendly, than the pure text only version. Why Briarwood Presbyterian for example? The PCA was formed there. It can be better imagine the whole story with the picture the place, the building where the PCA was created. If you have better pictures more suitable for the article please help to have a better article.Cryx88 Thanks your opinion.

Malik Noureed Awan - which version should stand?
You have recently edited Malik Noureed Awan. Please see Talk:Malik Noureed Awan and contribute your thoughts. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  19:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

SWAT MATTA
Matta is Teh of district swaT KPK.

Burnside Bridge
Thanks for participating in this quadrant/neighborhood discussion. I don't think the Burnside Bridge article should be included in the Southeast Portland category if it is already labeled with the Buckman neighborhood category, which is itself a subcategory of the Southeast Portland category. Ideally, the article would only appear in neighborhood categories and not quadrant categories. However, in this case, Old Town Chinatown screws that up a little since it straddles Burnside and therefore cannot be labeled a subcategory of either NW Portland or SW Portland. But if we can categorize the bridge by its two eastside neighborhoods (one NE and one SE), and keep them from the parent NE and SE quadrant categories. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * NW, NE, and SE were already present, so I merely added SW. Although in general, I think it is better not to include an article in both a sub-category and in a super-category, I would take an exception in this case.  If you include NW and SW but exclude NE and SE, it actually makes it appear that the bridge is NOT in the NE and SE quadrants. YBG (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Polite, concise, effective.
The 'D' in WP:BRD means discuss on the talk page, not in edit summaries. - Nicely done! (I'm envious of your skill(s)). Pdfpdf (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear: I must confess that I'm often very guilty of this one. I'll try to stop doing that! Double sharp (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In many cases, I wouldn't be quite so dogmatic. But consider this history of edits:
 * Ed1: (bold) Lots of changes with no edit summary
 * Ed2: (revert) Reverted the above with this edit summary:
 * "I rather like some (not all) of the changes you have made, but per WP:BRD, I suggest discussing them on the talk page is the best way forward."
 * Ed1: (discuss?) Restored original edit, marking it as 'minor', with edit summary:
 * "Shouldn't have to discuss something that warrants change, the article is too image heavy early on, there's a gallery before any information? Gallerie belong at the end of the page. It also needed a detailed geography run down, tell me what you."
 * YBG: Re-reverted with edit summary:
 * "The 'D' in WP:BRD means discuss on the talk page, not in edit summaries."
 * It seems that in this case, Ed1 committed several faux pas:
 * Complex edit with no edit summary
 * Declined to discuss in the forum requested by Ed2
 * Marked edit as minor, contrary to WP:minor edit, where it says:
 * "If there is any chance that another editor might dispute a change, it is best not to mark the edit as minor."
 * "Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances. When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an edit war is brewing, then it is better not to mark any edit as minor. Reverting blatant vandalism is an exception to this rule."
 * Without these, I may not have insisted "the 'D' in WP:BRD means discuss on the talk page, not in edit summaries". YBG (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

DB
Somehow I've gotten sucked up into what seems to an outsider as a quasi-religious edit war.

This page was watchlisted since I had made a small edit to the lead back in June 2014. So when Ahunt made a change, citing the 'longstanding consensus; at MOS:LINUX, and was then reverted by Dsprc, I jumped in and restored the page back to Ahunt's version, saying "Please read previously cited MOS" in my edit summary. Ahunt later thanked me for this edit. Dsprc then reverted my edit, with an edit summary that made me go back and re-read MOS:LINUX. My understanding of the MOS, which Ahunt cites but Dsprc says is POV, is that WP should use "GNU/Linus" only as part of the formal title of a distribution, not elsewhere. I have no opinion as to whether that is a good MOS or not. But based on that, I looked at dyne:bolic and then later at their website (in the legalese at the bottom of the page) and became convinced that the formal title for this thing is "dyne:bolic GNU/Linux". Consequently, it seemed to me that I could make Ahunt happy by confirming to the MOS and make Dsprc happy by including the GNU/ prefix if I reworded the dab item to use "dyne:bolic GNU/Linux" as the title, followed by a comma, and a description "a distribution of the Linux operating system".

Ahunt then removed the "GNU/Linux", which Dsprc restored. Ahunt then shortened the dab entry, which was reverted by Dsprc.

I'm sorely tempted to say 'a pox on both your houses', but then one thing I really like about WP is that I have seen people have very strong opinions, disagree, and then finally come together. I've often been the one that needed convincing, but occasionally I've been the one who has been persuasive. I'm hoping that in this current situation the editors could agree that the wording I inserted complies with MOS:LINUX and let it stand. YBG (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Adelaide city centre
Howdy! As far as I'm concerned, I think "we are there". And I think you feel the same. But I'm not sure about others. (None of which other than Ashton 29 have responded.) Do I care? Well ... no and yes. But I do feel a little guilty that we may have "steamrollered" the result. On the other hand, we've given others PLENTY of opportunity to add their 2c - hence, only a "little" guilty. So! What's stopping you/(us) closing the matter? (Other than guilt?) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Collapsing tables and widths
I'm looking for some rather technical help in formatting tables. I recently reformatted the information at (permalink) to use collapsing sub-tables. My problem is that the column widths of the different sub-tables don't match. I see a slight improvement if I expand all sub-tables and if remove the collapsible parameter. I'd really like the column widths to match exactly. What am I missing? YBG (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , I believe the issue is that you haven't actually specified the width of the tables themselves. "30em" is the minimum width of the table, so depending on the contents and browser being used the borders will change. The two possible solutions (that I can think of) are to either specifically define the width of the table, or specifically define the width of each column (I think the former is the better option). Personally, though, I would not split the two tables ("Physical properties" and "Chemical properties"), mainly based off this section. Up to you though. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, in mobile view the collapse does not exist (is expanded always). And as Primefac noted, folded text in articles is bad for accessability (losing page overview). And at least I would make the two tables collapsing, not six. -DePiep (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This has been overcome by events; we no longer have collapsing tables in the article. But there is an even bigger problem. It appears that tables do not appear at all when articles are printed or exported as PDFs.  This seems to be a major problem. YBG (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Texas vs. Florida
Great thing about Wikipedia, great minds like ours get together and become more the the sum of our parts. Nice working with you. Czolgolz (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Virginia Governors
Thank you for the info, surprising what a difference a "-" makes! Danthompson351 (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your welcome! YBG (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This was in response to the following posted at, where I wrote:
 * I notice you've added a new section several times and reverted it after each attempt. I'm guessing that you reverted because it messed up the format. Your problem is that you've been ending the table with |-}, which is incorrect -- you actually need to end it with |} . If you'll look back at the history of the article, you will find a version where I inserted the section with the correct table-ending code and a few other changes I thought helpful. If you have any questions, ask them here and I'll try to respond. YBG (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yoghurt
I'm planning to write an article about Action on Sugar.Rathfelder (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Feel free to restore the wikilink now or if you prefer, wait until a stub article is created.YBG (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Response to your questions
I'm responding to your questions here, as I don't think it would be constructive to continue at DePiep's page while they remain blocked and upset. I'll take them in reverse order. Per WP:BLOCK: "Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems." As there is a history of disruptive behavior with the user, and it repeated again with this incident, it was my opinion that it would lead to more problems if left unchecked. Per Blocking_policy: "The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. Longer blocks for repeated and high levels of disruption is to reduce administrative burden; it is under presumption that such users are likely to cause frequent disruption or harm in future." I considered an indefinite block, and requiring a successful unblock appeal like in this case of persistent disruption, but opted instead for editing privileges to be regained automatically after 72 hours, at the latest. Their unblock request was denied by another admin. As I attempted to make clear earlier at WP:AN3, this block was motivated by the longer term pattern of behavior, not for the individual incident, which also explains my decision to—in your words—give "a pass" to the other party. I hope that explains things, even if you don't necessarily agree. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK,, I see that admin policy considers previous history in determining block length. You say "My preference is always to assume that warnings can be teaching moments, and let otherwise productive editors such as DePiep and Alakzi move on to more valuable edits without the need for a timeout." But in this case, one party received a 72-hour block and the other party was not even warned (unless I missed something). YBG (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, there was this, which may or may not be what you were expecting.—Bagumba (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right,, it's not what I expected. But I do believe it is positive. Although it appears that I am reading only half of an extended conversation (one of my pet peeves), nevertheless, I can see that (a) you offered Alakzi a friendly suggestion for how to avoid edit warring and that (b) Alakzi responded with an acknowledgement of how he could have acted differently. That looks like a textbook example of the positive results of AGF. Thank you. YBG (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Beaverton City Library
Thanks for creating a redirect. I went ahead and converted to a stub. :) --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a thought
I noticed that there was a dust-up about students making and reverting test edits. Hypothetically, if each of your students were to get their own user name, they could create their own personal sand box(es) (as many as they wished) to which they could copy entire text from articles, and then alter them. They then could work on these till the cows come home. And there would be no conflict or cause for concern. Just a gentle suggestion from an outside disinterested party. Feel free to disregard my message if you find it inappropriate, irrelevant, disrespectful or officious. I have the best of intentions, and none of these was intended. FWIW, I want your students to succeed and to graduate into full-fledged wikipedia editors. We need all the help we can get. Best regards. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I don't find your message objectionable in any way, but it does arouse my curiosity. I followed a recent 'dust-up' about a teacher making and reverting test edits, but I'm pretty sure I didn't even comment. I trust you won't find it objectionable if I ask you a question. What prompted you to leave me this message?  I am puzzled. Thanks, and happy editing! YBG (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I ran across it on somebody's talk page. I did not read it closely enough, I gather.  Erroneously thought you were involved. Sorry for disturbing your tilling in the garden. Best regards.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Any chance you can remember where? YBG (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. Let me know if I can help. I might be "somebody". Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 07:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. I suspected that it might have been that my post at  was immediately before the talk page section that discussed the "dust-up". Maybe  could verify that was the place? YBG (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do think it was on one of those two pages. I am a talk page lurker (on both pages, I think), and learn a lot as I do that. I find interesting subjects, controversies, etc. Sometimes I see the world through a different lens. Occasionally I throw in my 2₵.  Hope that helps.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 23:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, no worries. It was just really puzzling to me because I am not a teacher and don't have students. It has all been a good learning experience for me. I, too, have been a 'talk page lurker' and have on more than one occasion read things a bit too quickly and jumped to incorrect conclusions. Usually it has ended well, but occasionally I've unnecessarily caused confusion where there would otherwise have been none. So, happy editing! YBG (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox constitutional amendment
Riffing off our recent discussion in Talk:Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, I went ahead and created (in my sandbox) a draft infobox constitutional amendment, and started a discussion under the section Infobox constitutional amendment. Your input would be appreciated. TJRC (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:United States presidential election, 2016
Per WP:BRD, I have posted to Template talk:United States presidential election, 2016 regarding whether Rod Silva (businessman) should be included on Template:United States presidential election, 2016. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Record Franz Joseph I
I think Queen Elizabeth II would surpass Franz Joseph I on 28 January 2020 because Franz Joseph I reigned 68 years, 355 days. On 17 January 2020 Queen would reigning 68 years 344 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miszaki89 (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for promptly responding. Please discuss this at talk:List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign so that others can contribute to the discussion. Also, don't forget to sign by including ~ at the end of your posts. If you want to make sure that someone is notified of a point on a talk page, use the ping template, like I have here.  Thanks for your efforts to improve our encyclopedia! Cheers! YBG (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note to Reywas92
Sometimes it works best to cite WP:MOS in edit summaries, e.g. MOS:QUOTEMARKS. But you seem to have come up with a fine comprise. That is what collaboration is all about. I well remember our work together at List of U.S. state abbreviations. It was my first significant WP collaboration. YBG (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!
This template was my creation. Enjoy. Context is everything. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 00:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Looks like it might have 7 layers of cake & 6 layers of filling, making a total = thirteen .  Mmmm.... YBG (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

License plate articles
"Add current plate to top of article to prevent hovercard from showing blank plate."

Not saying your edits here are wrong, but... I don't get it. Bluebird207 (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I have opted in to the hovercard beta feature so that when my cursor hovers over a link I see a preview of the article lede with the first picture. In most of the license plate articles, the first picture was file:Blank License Plate Shape.jpg, a most uninteresting picture. Hope this explanation helps.  Cheers! YBG (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, this explanation certainly does help. Thanks. Bluebird207 (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016
The following comment is moved here to refactor my talk page:

--- Hello, you kindly deleted my message to Tewapack.

You support trolls? Or are you the same person?? Do you advocate providing false information on Wiki??? ---

It was added by at 07:51, May 9 2016 (UTC)

My response is at. YBG (talk) 08:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello YBG,

thank you.

I understand your points, however it shouldn't require my publicly (and forever) publishing a copy of my ID and passport to substantiate points that require attention.

...when various personal information and links are wrong, then it should be self-evident to the editor in question.

I am not prepared to publish my identification documents.

Furthermore, in context of the comparisons you made, wrong portrayals can be deemed slanderous and pursued by litigation. If I were a politician or high-profiler that would be a certainty.

Regards Lincoln — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golfeditor1 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, we can talk over here if you prefer. Again, remember to use four tildes to add a timestamped signature line. There is a more information about how to use talk pages over at Help:Using talk pages, especially.
 * I don't quite understand why you think anyone is asking you to publish your identification documents. There is no need for that at all.
 * You say various personal information and links are wrong, but that it isn't immediately self-evident to me. I could go back over the edit history and try to figure it out, but maybe you could just let me know what it is you think should be changed or deleted. Then I can look at your proposed changes and the cited references and tell you specifically what I recommend. I may even be able to do some of this myself. Also, if you would prefer to communicate off-wiki, you can use the "email this user" link available on the left hand side of my talk page.
 * All the best. YBG (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you have seen this. Please help me by letting me know what you think should be changed. You can contact me here or via the "e-mail this user". It may be a few days before I can get back to you, but I would like to help. YBG (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

the following was moved here to be in proper order YBG (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, thank you. I have no idea how this "talk" works. Its a bit of a pain.

Anyhow, when I officially changed my name via Deedpoll in 2014 I signed a legal document stating that I from that day forward relinquish the use of my old name. The reasons are personal and private as to why I did this, but it also has to do with my ending my tour career up until 2013.

The facts that are stated wrong are eg nationality. I am born in Wolverhampton. I resided in Germany and played under Germany but I am English/British.

Also my body height has changed. I grew to 172cm during rehabilitation and weigh 75kg.

Then there are the player profiles. The European Tour has changed my name on file and adapted the history. The Sunshine Tour is in process of changing too. The MENA Tour profile is not quoting a correct name at all because they processed it wrong. It was never really relevant information, but it too refers to my old name.

Also, for personal reasons I want no reference of my family or father made.

All in all this equates to one of two scenarios: either the info is adapted to reflect the actual circumstance, which is impossible because all media and results refer to my old name still.

or the page gets deleted.

I prefer the deletion and I edit a new page if and when I may compete again.

A third scenario is that the background info is amended and the career ends in 2013, which is technically true too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golfeditor1 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

the above was moved here to be in proper order YBG (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your helpful response. Let me think about it for a while and I'll get back to you with a recommendation as to what I think is the best way forward.
 * In the mean time, let me explain a few things about how talk pages work.
 * If you are starting a new discussion, add it to the bottom of the talk page by using the "New Section" (or "+") button at the top of the page.
 * If you are continuing a discussion, edit the section that it appears in by using the "Edit" tab in that section and scroll to the bottom so that comments appear in chronological order, newest last.
 * After the first comment, replies should be indented by using colons at the beginning of each paragraph. First response gets one colon, second gets two colons, etc.
 * At the end of each comment, include four tildes ( ~ ). The software will automatically change this into a signature line for you.
 * Keep a discussion on the same talk page it was started on.
 * If you want to make sure that the other editor is notified of your comment, you use ping. The syntax is
 * Always assume good faith. Even if you are convinced that the other editor is really acting in bad faith, it is better to assume good faith.
 * Never comment on another editor's character or motivation. It is best to ask a simple question that assumes good faith. If you absolutely must say something negative, make sure that it is speaking directly about the content of an edit and never about the editor themselves. Always avoid sarcasm or the like. It almost always makes things worse, not better.
 * I hope this brief introduction will help. You can find more details at WP:TP.
 * Talk page etiquette is helpful, but sometimes experienced editors forget what it was like to be a new editor faced with a steep learning curve. We're supposed to be patient and not 'bite' newcomers, but alas, we sometimes forget, so it helps if newcomers can be patient too!
 * It helps if newcomer and experienced editors both remember that sometimes unintentional failure to follow talk page etiquette can appear like intentional rudeness. If both parties forget this and forget to assume good faith, the result is unpleasant not only for the two editors but for other members of the WP community.
 * Happy editing! YBG (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
The Lincoln Birch page is not authorised!! — Preceding text originally posted&#32;on User Talk:YBG&#32;([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YBG&diff=prev&oldid=727079249 diff])&#32;by Golfeditor1 (talk&sdot;contribs)&#32;2016 June 26 14:22:44‎ (UTC)

Golf editing

 * I have just finished looking again at this article and carefully checking the references. This resulted in a few changes and allowed lead sentence to be simplified.
 * I have been very careful to annotate almost every fact with a source, and to remove most of the information not supported by the sources.
 * A few loose ends remain:
 * 1. All remaining unsourced information has been marked citation needed. Any references to reliable sources would be appreciated.
 * 1(a) Three tours (Gateway, Sunshine, EPD)
 * 1(b) The 2011 Hamburg PGA championship
 * 2. For the tours which are sourced, I'm not 100% sure I've got the years correct. Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.
 * 2(a) For the MENA tour, I listed the two years in which the source includes a tournament in the timeline.
 * 2(b) For the Challenge & Euro tours, I included all year which the source lists a positive number in the "tournaments played" column. Alternatively, I could list the years with positive numbers in either the "Rank" (="TR"?) column or the "In Money" column. I don't know what the standard practice is in golf, so if anyone can clarify this, please do.
 * I have tried to take into consideration all of the input I have previously received. Further help would be greatly appreciated. YBG (talk) 07:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Any comments or suggestions? YBG (talk) 04:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * thank you; difficult to find Gateway Tour results archive because closed and re-launched in the meantime; PGA of Hamburg has no archive; MENA Tour years are correct; concise works Golfeditor1 (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Good to hear from you. YBG (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

River categories
I'm startubg a new discussion at WP:CFD about the naming of river categories. Since you have participated in t least one of the recent discussions in the matterm you nay want to express your opinion at Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 11. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Heavy metals uses
G'day YBG. I've added another paragraph to the start of the Uses section so as to address an FAC request by Johnbod for something about why HM are suited for their uses. I temporarily restored the paragraph at the end of the intro to this section---the one you had trimmed a little earlier. I did this because I wrote the new para in the context of there being an opening para in the intro section, and a closing paragraph (the one you trimmed). Now that I've more or less finished with this section pls feel free to do some more ce as per your original intent, if you reckon this would still be beneficial. Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! YBG (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Problem cut+paste moves in heavy metals
A recent move from Heavy metal (science and technology) to Heavy metals was done using a cut-and-paste, which should not have been done as it messes up the history and prevenance of the text.

YBG (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought I had to do it that way because where I wanted to move the "HM (science & technology)" article to i.e. "Heavy metals", was already a redirect article. Would there've been another way to do it? Sandbh (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I may as well learn some more about the process. How does it mess up the provenance of the articles? They all still exist (don't they?) and one can see their histories and edit summaries, and therefore track provenance? Sandbh (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * At the very least, it means that you have to look in two places, and you have to know that you have to look in two places. I understand that an admin can do a history merge afterwards, and that is one way to rectify the issue. I was thinking of doing something different, namely:
 * Verify that above history includes all recent changes
 * Open up all pre-move pages
 * Prepare to restore all pre-move pages
 * Re-verify that no new changes have been made
 * Restore pages to state before cut+paste move
 * Move "Heavy metals" to "Heavy metals (saved history)" to save history and make way for move
 * Move "Heavy metal (science and technology)" to "Heavy metals" to redo cut+paste move
 * Redirect "Heavy metals (saved history)" to "Heavy metals"
 * Redirect "Talk:Heavy metal (saved history)" to point to "Talk:Heavy metals"
 * Restore post-move changes to article page
 * Restore post-move changes to talk page using cut+paste
 * Add quoted-from template to each talk page entry
 * But having now looked at Uw-c&pmove and WP:HISTMERGE, I think we should just tag the page and wait for an admin to help. YBG (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Headslap! I see. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Unobtainium
Obviously dysprosium is not like the fictional unobtainium. It is just that something of that name, or with a name of that meaning, actually does exist. Is that relevant to this article? I think so. You do not. If you insist, go ahead and remove it again. But if you do, please give "irrelevant" as your reason. Vague it is not.--Klausok (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It was not me that used the term "vague", that was another editor. My edit summary mentioned two reasons I reverted. First (and primarily) it was becasue of a formatting error (section header duplicated a the end of the previous paragraph). Secondarily, because the info didn't seem encyclopedic. Nevertheless, I provided a comment and suggestion on your talk page for how I think this information could find an appropriate place in that article.
 * If you think there is more discussion needed, please, let's do it in one place. If you prefer to continue here, then I'll add a quote of my original comment from your talk page. If you prefer to use your talk page, then I'll move these comments over there.
 * Thanks! and happy editing YBG (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

the "pretty picture"
Hey, thanks for the cosmetic fixes! I freely confess that that is not one of my strong suits at all.

I considered leaving the transactinides in and colouring them grey, but decided on just omitting them: they are not really important elements for most chemists. I also wasted a good deal of time looking for some more values for Bk–Lr before throwing up my hands in defeat: no one seems to know them apart from "they're all close to −2.0 V". (A shame about Eu at −1.99 V though.) Some sources will also give you values for Ge, Sb, Te, and At, notwithstanding that according to metalloid these may not actually form simple cations. Double sharp (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you consider changing the 2.0 dividing line to something else to eliminate the borderline cases? YBG (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I kept it at −2.0 V as a good predictor. Though it strikes me that for Eu some of this is undoubtedly because of atmospheric oxidation; Eu2+ is quite happy in anaerobic conditions. So I moved it, since you can plausibly argue that the value is a little lower than it ideally should be (and also, Eu is after all the most reactive lanthanide). The problem with Bk–Lr is that the values are not well-known at all and can vary by 0.2 V in each direction. Difficulty of testing on trace quantities can only make the problem worse. Ideally, you would expect them to become increasingly electropositive and reactive as atomic number goes up, since 5f shrinks deeply into the core and you should get europium-like reactivity in the late actinides (along with really strongly electropositive Lr with the potassium-like first ionisation energy). But we don't know this. Now with the orange blur it at least appear plausible that this is the trend, instead of the previous desperate collection of data from sources of varying quality and age. Double sharp (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hard to do much chemistry on a random atom or two, especially when they tend to disappear before you get them into the beaker. YBG (talk) 06:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed! Have you ever seen the video reenactment of the discovery and chemical characterisation of mendelevium? (It's already the third-last element I found any data at all for, albeit of obviously dubious quality – though even that is great for such a fugitive metal!) Double sharp (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Fascinating! Although the narrator at the very end seems to say "... in the June 1965 edition of Physical Review", but I think it should have said "June 1955".
 * Yes, that's right. Double sharp (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As a high school student, I spent a few summers in Berkeley in the late 60s and had a tour of the cyclotron, of which I remember hardly anything. What I found much more interesting was a demonstration of a Lehmer sieve, the DLS-127. If memory serves, the demonstration was given by Lehmer himself. It was quite fascinating. YBG (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow! That sounds really cool. Double sharp (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW, I just changed the wikicode behind one of your userboxes. YBG (talk) 07:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. What seems to have happened is that originally there was no default value, this editor changed it to "he", and then this IP editor changed it to "she". And there it stood for seven years, without anyone noticing that trying to leave it undetermined did not actually give the expected result. Double sharp (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Osmium caption in the Heavy Metals article
Could this go into the frame around the osmium image, rather than where it is now in the info box template? The caption currently looks a little out of place. Sandbh (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have modified the caption so that I think it fits better in the context. But to do what you want requires messing with the template, which I will now try. YBG (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, now I've modified sidebar periodic table so that the caption parameter is inside the pic frame. YBG (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it looks nice now---like a collectible card. I'll have a go at tuning the caption. It currently reads like the crystalline form is nearly twice the density, whereas all (solid) forms of osmium, not just the crystalline form, have the same high density. Sandbh (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Try that. Still only three lines. Sandbh (talk)
 * Now it's just two! YBG (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Impressive! Sandbh (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

HSAB
"I have now discovered that having the two images the same height is not quite what is needed, it is a bit more complicated." If you can explain to me what is needed, I can try to create the required combined image. I would create it as an .SVG, rather than the .PNGs you cited in the Help Desk. Maproom (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Osmium
I asked at the help desk about getting rid of the double box icon to the right of the image caption. Another editor suggested using this multiple image template. I added the center html tags to the text. Would there be an acceptable way of getting this template into the Heavy metals sidebar template? Sandbh (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried making the change to sidebar periodic table/sandbox, and previewing the HM article, but it didn't make any difference. YBG (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've moved the pic back outside the sidebar. YBG (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Elemental importance
John Emsley's Nature's Building Blocks singles out the following elements as having required the most number of words: H, Li, C, N, O, F, Na, Mg, Al, Si, P, S, Cl, K, Ca, Ti, Fe, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Se, Ag, Cd, Sn, Sb, I, Ce, W, Pt, Au, Hg, Pb, Th, U, and Pu. (Cerium?! I would never have expected!!) Double sharp (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure what Emsley means. Requires most words for what? YBG (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To write the section in his book. Double sharp (talk) 06:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So it is a list of elements by the length of the section in his book? In other words, the off-line version of what I was attempting in WT:ELEM. YBG (talk) 06:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

"Ask an American", 2nd ed.
Hi! I've got another question for you re America and American perspectives on things. This time, it's not really related to Wiki, but this article caught my eye. It said requirements of some states to carry a photo ID when voting is targeted against blacks, and I genuinely wonder why they think so. I mean, every American citizen has an American passport, right? And the said passport surely has a photo in it? Really, I don't quite follow. Could you explain that for me?--R8R (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, most Americans don't have passports. In 2015 there were 125,907,176 US passports in a population of 321,442,000, so about 60% of the population don't hold passports. It stands to reason. Most of us don't travel overseas, and they cost about $135 for 10 years.
 * But most of us do drive -- 87% of driving-age Americans have licenses (more in rural areas and less in large metros). In my state, you pay $40 every eight years for your license, and for the same amount, non-drivers can have photo id card. Such state matters vary from place to place, but I believe my state is fairly typical.
 * But to come to the issue of voter ID and race, here is how I think the reasoning goes:
 * Since It is harder for poor people to get photo id cards due to the fees, the cost of travel and the time off work
 * Therefore photo ID requirements disproportionately hinder poor people from voting
 * And since African Americans are on average poorer than the general population
 * Therefore photo ID requirements disproportionately hinder Blacks from voting
 * But coming closer to the center of the debate:
 * Since Photo ID requirements disproportionately hinder Blacks from voting
 * And since All men of good will desire the greatest possible participation in elections
 * Therefore All men of good will should oppose photo ID requirements
 * And since Many republicans favor photo ID requirements
 * Therefore Republicans are motivated by a desire to disenfranchise Blacks
 * Or on the other side of the aisle:
 * Since Photo ID requirements hinder voter fraud
 * And since All men of good will are opposed to voter fraud
 * Therefore All men of good will should favor photo ID requirements
 * And since Many democrats oppose photo ID requirements
 * Therefore Democrats are motivated by a desire to allow voter fraud
 * Now the first argument, IMHO, is generally sound, having valid reasoning based on true premises. The issue is one of significance -- how much harder is it, how many poor people are so affected, and whether those amounts are sufficient to overcome other considerations. But the 2nd and 3rd arguments IMHO use clearly invalid reasoning. Both confuse being willing to accept a consequence with being motivated to achieve a consequence. And both completely ignore the give-and-take trade-offs involved in almost all political issues.
 * What seems to be missing from a lot of political debate is simple willingness to assume good faith in those one disagrees with. Well, what should we expect? If we have problems with AGF in WP -- where all that is at stake is an encyclopedia, how much more in the RL political arena where the stakes are much greater.
 * I hope this has been helpful. YBG (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your answer. I read it a few hours ago and took my time to rethink it. In general, I was able to build this whole line of reasoning prior to asking you except then it would require passport to be non-essential in the U.S., to which I was like, "nah, can't be." Turns out, however, it can! This is quite amusing to me. I'd think it's the state who needs you to have a passport to keep track on you, at very least because that's how it is in Russia (where I am from). I just took a second and read a description of the citizenship in the U.S. from Voice of America, and, wow. That's a different approach in a relationship between a state and a citizen. You certainly wouldn't be able to do that in here. As a Russian citizen, you must have a passport, which costs you 2000 rubles (~$30), I think? But it's not considered that you are buying it, you're rather paying the fee for the bureaucracy around the passport, but not buying the passport itself. The idea for paying for a driving license is also unusual, but comprehensive. Thank you for pointing that out. That gives me a different perspective on what a state can be.
 * As for your strings of logic, I understood the problem in a similar way. My understanding, however, was based on a basis I couldn't entirely rationalize---hence the question in first place.
 * By the way, congratulations on your elections! Whether you like your President-elect or not, you can enjoy the fact you couldn't tell who would win the election before it happened; not to say correctly tell. Competitiveness in this respect is to be celebrated. (In contrast, I am mostly sure that our President will win the election in 2018---in fact, his advisers are worried about that the victory doesn't become too lopsided rather than the victory itself--- and the biggest possible obstacle to that outcome is not a particular candidate or set of candidates, but rather the uncertainty on whether he will run and whether the election will actually take place.)--R8R (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)t
 * I also read your initial question and mulled on it for a while before replying. In fact, I had a draft saved on my computer (in tmp.txt) but saved something on top of it (sigh) so I had to re-work the whole thing from scratch. And having spent nearly two days thinking about your response, I now remember a couple of things I left out.
 * First of all, I think my use of the word "state" is different from yours - when I said "my state" I mean one of the 50 U.S. States, but I think when you said "state" you meant the sovereign state of Russia itself (or her government) rather than one of the federal subjects of Russia. (We use the word in both senses and usually have no problem disambiguating it.) Anyway, our drivers licenses are issued by 50 different Departments of Motor Vehicles but our passports by the United States State Department. (That makes a 3rd use of the word 'state' -- just a little something to keep non-native speakers on their toes!) And we, too, would view the expense of both the passport and the drivers license as a fee toward maintaining the respective bureaucracies.
 * And, not only are we not required to have a passport, we are not even required to have a drivers license unless we drive a car. Most young people get one as soon as they can, at 16 in most states. People almost always carry their license, but we are not required to except when driving. (In the UK, I think they don't even require that!) But since 9/11, we have been required to present a government-issued photo id of one sort or another for domestic air travel; a great deal was made of being willing to require a photo-id for air travel but unwilling to require it for voting.
 * And thank you for your congratulations! It is one of a few things I've heard this election season that should unite and encourage Americans on both sides of the political aisle. IMHO it ranks with this memo (and others like it) indicating that after 58 elections coming as regular as clockwork every four years for two and quarter centuries, this will be yet another of the two dozen or so peaceful transitions of power from one political party to another.
 * And for me personally, the most touching encouragement came in a pre-election letter from a Christian whose own culture and government is antagonistic toward his faith, in which he reminded American Christians not to place their hope in a donkey (the symbol of Democratic party) or an elephant (symbol of the Republican party), but only in the Lamb (the symbol of Jesus Christ).
 * I have mentioned your congratulations to RL friends and all of them have found it very encouraging. Thank you again!
 * YBG (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As for "state": I did know that the U.S. is different in that respect from Russia and most other European countries (though I'm not all that sure about, say, Switzerland and their cantons). I know that individual states have their local taxes and I vaguely remembered from school the talk about how the fighters for independence from Britain were the "thirteen colonies" and not one something. Also, the name "United States" gives a good hint at it. Moreover, some time ago I stumbled on Crash Course U.S. History (an educational and somewhat entertaining show), from which, in particular, I learned that prior to the Civil War, residents of the U.S. took alliance to their state, rather than the entity of the U.S. as a whole, as their primary political self-identification. And therefore, it was the case for when the Founding Fathers declared independence, wrote the Constitution, and so on. So I think I understand the general talk about states and state-ness in the U.S. (It makes me feel a little better about the American system now that I've learned this is also meant to be your support to those bureaucracies.)
 * Well, not having to have a driver's license is far easier to get on with: it is meant to display that the state thinks you can be permitted to drive a car and that's not, while useful, cannot be a necessity. (To put it to its extremes, especially if you're physically challenged, which may easily prohibit driving a car but certainly can't be a reason to deprive you of citizenship.) Also, the Founding Fathers surely didn't have any cars around.
 * My pleasure! I'm cheerful to know my words met such a reaction. In a way, I envy you; your system has become quite stable and our system has yet to reach that stability. Seemingly our current system is not all that stable in the long run. Looking forward to the future to see what changes then, to the better or to the worse.--R8R (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I just finished listening to a couple of episodes of the Crash Course. As I listened, I couldn't help wondering how it would be for a non-native speaker to understand the rapid fire talk. And then there are the subtle allusions that probably couldn't be picked up without already knowing a fair amount of U.S. history. I particularly enjoyed the subtle tip-of-the-hat to folk singer Woody Guthrie. Thanks for sharing!
 * Another interesting tidbit that may have been covered in one of the many episodes I didn't listen to: before our civil war, the name of our country was generally treated as a plural noun (The United States are ...); but since then we almost exclusively treat it as a singular noun (The United States is ...).
 * Thanks again! 07:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! Yes, they do mention that and I learned that from them on my first view (and finally I learned where that grammatical irregularity came from).--R8R (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And as near as I can figure, it is totally unrelated to the difference between en-uk and en-us in which on one side of the Atlantic it would be said that "Parliament are considering the issue" but on the other side it would be said that "Congress is considering the issue." It has been well said that the US and the UK are two countries divided by a common language. Or maybe it is all part of a vast conspiracy to disadvantage non-native speakers! :)
 * My list of bi-partisan encouraging words from our recent election continues to grow. As I was shared your comments by e-mail with a friend who has had a fair deal of contact with foreign students, he related a story of a newly arrived African student, who in all seriousness asked his American friends where was the best place to hide on election day. In his experience, election day was synonymous with civil unrest. Although we have had some election-related protests here, I still does not appear that this year's will be as notable as 1968. But no one here thinks as this poor soul did, and for that we can be grateful.
 * YBG (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Halogens are not a group
Just to enjoy: this #Halogens thing once again shows that we all did a great job back in 2013: redefining the categories. Three years and still standing! Even the working title "option 10" is still used. WT:ELEMENTS is a great WP forum to work with/on/in. As said: enjoy our quality :-) -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Countervandalism is supposed to remove vandalism
Hi. restored vandalism and after another editor tried to fix it, ClueBot reverted them. In the future please be more careful. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 15:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for assuming good faith, in presuming that it was carelessness on my part. And much to my embarassment, my careless revert allowed the vandalism to stand for nearly a week, and even messed ClueBot up! Many, many thanks! YBG (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

RE:Living PsOTUS discussion
I see that Neve-selbert is urging you to again revert your changes at Living Presidents of the United States to the old status quo, and plotting action against me if I "revert and therefore obstruct" you from doing so. When I restored your new version a week ago, I did so because I hated to see you throw in the towel after putting in so much effort into the changes. That's why when I restored it, I tinkered with the table, in an attempt to fold some of the observations of others into it. Yes, in hindsight, your creation was "not ready for prime time", and I most certainly should have let sleeping dogs lie; but a new consensus was germinating (if painfully). That said, forgive me for countermanding your decision. If you choose again to remove the new version and restore the old, I will respect your decision. I hope that discussions for bringing change to the table will continue no matter what, as I agree with your assessment that the old version "is rather ugly and unnecessarily duplicates information".

Regarding your participation in that discussion, it's always difficult to facilitate a discussion AND be an active participant in it; I, for one, have no problem with the way you've been participating. You don't appear to be ignoring the opinions of others or pushing your own ideas too much (with perhaps the exception of the ongoing discussion regarding the duration column, but I'll leave it to you to reflect on this area). Finally, as you asked about ways that your talk page involvement could be improved, try looking at your role not as one of trying to "drive [the discussion] to consensus", but rather one of trying to "assist it toward consensus". There's a difference, and thinking about that difference is helpful for me in such situations. Thanks again, for your constructive hard work on that page. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words, which arrived as I was in the midst of formulating my recent talk page announcement. Thank you for the helpful distinction between "driving" and "assisting" in the process of moving a discussion toward a consensus. It is a helpful distinction, and while I think my intention is more to ward assisting, using the word "drive" could result in misunderstanding, especially as I am involving myself both as a participant and as a facilitator. Oh, and most of all, thank you for your active participation in the talk page discussion! YBG (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, I asked to revert to the original version until we came to a consensus on the alignment and the various tweaks that you had made. You reverted four times within 24 hours and you were let off for it (contrary to WP:3RR and to my bewilderment). If "plotting against" you means enforcing Wikipedia's guidelines and code of conduct, then so be it. I support the redesign, but I oppose your constant reverting sprees when someone makes a tweak that you disagree with. I would personally recommend you read the essay WP:BRD, it should help you avoid similar discord like this in future. Good day,--Nev&eacute;–selbert 23:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me begin by saying that I have enjoyed my interactions with each of you but have found myself getting very frustrated nevertheless. This has been, I believe, largely of my own doing, because I tend to want to pigeon-hole people into nice, neat "good guy" / "bad guy" categories. (Alas, real life is never so simplistic!)
 * Because of this, if I noticed some unpleasant interaction between Neve-selbert and Drdpw, and I had recently had good interactions with Neve, I just assumed that Drdpw was a "bad guy" - 'cause of course the one I'm interacting well with MUST be a "good guy".
 * Then a few days later, I'd notice another bit of unpleasantness between the two of you, but this time it came after I'd had some good interactions with Drdpw, so I'd assume that Neve was a "bad guy" - 'cause of course anyone I'm interacting with well MUST be a "good guy".
 * At some point I got frustrated 'cause I couldn't remember who was the good guy and who was the bad guy, and so I looked back through history and realized how I'd flip-flopped back and forth. Good thing I'd tried to put on a facade of assuming good faith!
 * I hope both of you can see the humor in all of this and most of all can see that much of my frustration stemmed from ME, while trying to write things as though I was assuming good faith, actually in my mind only AGF of one person at a time.
 * Anyway, that is all past now, and I will assume that each of you want the very best for the article and each of you will contribute to the discussion.
 * And for the record, I know that Neve wanted to have things reverted for "just a short time" but I am expecting that reaching a consensus on the best possible alternative will take more than just a few days. YBG (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Saraiki requested move
Hi, you're welcome to comment in the move discussion at Talk:Saraiki dialect. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! YBG, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 01:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks without header}} to user talk pages. Thank you, and I pray the same blessings for your New Year also! YBG (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Death anchor
What does the death anchor do? The template does not explain it well. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * anchor provides a location for an incoming section link. Such anchors function in the same way as a section header. The anchors are inserted when another article or a redirect has a section link that is not the same as the section title. They are sometimes added when the anchor name and the section title are the same so that if the section title changes, the incoming section link will continue to function. See MOS:LINK. In the specific case of US presidents and vice presidents, I have created a series of WP:Redirects like YBG (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Very clever, thank you. I often have trouble finding the death information, since I add obituary references from the New York Times. You would think the death info would end the biography section, sometimes it is buried in the article. Marriage info is hard to find too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Dmitri Mendeleev
Thanks for your totally anal revert, complete with pompous "WP:NOTFORUM". Get a sense of humour. 86.179.177.235 (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not recognize the intent of your note as humor. This is not unusual; often subtleties such as the writer's intent are not apparent when reading simple text without the benefit of non-verbal cues. In the same way, I see that you assumed pomposity from my edit summary, when in fact, all that was intended was to provide a terse pointer to the wikipedia policies that I thought were appropriate. I see on taking a closer look at your edit history that you have made a number of constructive edits, and for that, I thank you very much. I hope you will continue your involvement in this encyclopedia, contributing for a long time to come. All the best to you in this new year! YBG (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Living presidents
It seems I just can't leave Living Presidents of the United States alone. I've got a new tables at User:YBG/sandbox. As we'd collaborated together before, I thought I'd see if you wanted to comment here before I solicit broader input at the article's talk page. YBG (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Icons in tables in m.wp
This looks like a bug in the mobile software


 * special:permalink/767458153 Table in the lede displays OK in mobile and desktop view
 * special:diff/767458153/767458154 Adding a section header before the table
 * special:permalink/767458154 ... misplaces the icons in the table header in mobile view
 * special:diff/767458154/767458155 Adding text between section head and table
 * special:permalink/767458155 but mobile view still displays wrong

YBG (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Ping test

 * (12) 12th edit, discontiguous paragraphs, 1st with 5 tildes, 2nd with 3 tildes. 23:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC) -- (13) One failure msg, can't tell which. YBG (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (14) 14th edit, discontiguous paragraphs, 1st with 5 tildes, 2nd with 3 tildes. 23:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC) -- (15) no failure received here. YBG (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (16) 16th edit, discontiguous paragraphs, 1st with 3 tildes, 2nd with 5 tildes. YBG (talk) -- (17) Both failures received YBG (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

(5) My 4th edit, two pings in discontiguous paragraphs. YBG (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC) -- (6) Both failures received YBG (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

(1) This is to test pinging. YBG (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC) -- (2) Ping failure received OK. YBG (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (3) Part of my 3rd edit, two pings in contiguous paragraphs. YBG (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC) -- (4) Both failures received YBG (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (3) Part of my 3rd edit, two pings in contiguous paragraphs. YBG (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC) -- (4) Both failures received YBG (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

(5) My 4th edit, two pings in discontiguous paragraphs. YBG (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC) -- (6) Both failures received YBG (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

(7) My 7th edit, single ping ending with five tildes YBG 22:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC) -- (8) Mystery solved: ping doesn't work when 5 tildes are used

(8) My 8th test, single ping ending with three tildes YBG (talk) -- (9) Interestingly, generated 2 failure messages YBG (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * (10) 10th edit, contiguous paragraphs, 1st with 5 tildes, 2nd with 3 tildes. 23:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC) -- (11) Both failures received YBG (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (10) 10th edit, contiguous paragraphs, 1st with 5 tildes, 2nd with 3 tildes. YBG (talk) -- (11) Both failures received YBG (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (12) 12th edit, discontiguous paragraphs, 1st with 5 tildes, 2nd with 3 tildes. YBG (talk) -- (13) One failure msg, can't tell which. YBG (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (14) 14th edit, discontiguous paragraphs, 1st with 5 tildes, 2nd with 3 tildes. YBG (talk) -- (15) failure received OK here. YBG (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (16) 16th edit, discontiguous paragraphs, 1st with 3 tildes, 2nd with 5 tildes. 23:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC) -- (17) Both failures received YBG (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Meetup Invitation
You are invited to the upcoming Asian Pacific American Heritage month edit-athon.

This will be held on the first floor of the Knight library at the University of Oregon.

For more information please see: Meetup/Eugene/WikiAPA, a Facebook event link is also available on the Meetup page.


 * Date: Friday, May 26, 2017
 * Time: 12:00 pm – 4:00 pm
 * Location: Edminston Classroom, Knight Library, Room 144
 * Address:1501 Kincaid Street, Eugene, Oregon, 97403-1299

Hope to see you there!
 * (This message was sent to WikiProject members via Meetup/Eugene/WikiAPA/MailingList on 23:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC). To opt-out of future messages please remove your name from the mailing list.)

Second opinion needed
Hi! I'm writing Thorium and I've stumbled on a question I hope you can help me resolve. I can't lose the feeling something is missing. On the other hand, it doesn't feel right to explain how nuclear energy is collected in general (probably you know that a nuclear power station is essentially a big steam engine) because we are talking about a particular specific. Maybe a fresh look from you can help me resolve the question?--R8R (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've never asked for such help before but I thought you could help because you can take a fresh look at it and because, given your good analytical abilities as seen in our ELEMENTS discussions, perhaps you can get to it, if there's anything to get to :) --R8R (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope to have a look at it in a day or two. YBG (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much!--R8R (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm wikibreaking but I might have a chance to look at it in the mean time. Sorry. YBG (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's alright. I've been able to rewrite text in a way that looks better; I'm even satisfied with it now. A second look is still welcome but no longer necessary, so nothing at all goes wrong if you can't take a look.--R8R (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Re compelling need to subcategorize nonmetals
Some of what you said overlaps with a line of argument I've been developing in my sandbox, here. I haven't quite posted it yet since DS are discussing some related nuances. Sandbh (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Preferentially ionic/covalent NM
On a more serious note, what about subcategorizing the nonmetals into (a) noble gases (b) preferentially-ionic nonmetals and (c) preferentially-covalent nonmetals? Its not as sexy as isolating the corrosive NM, but I think that preferentially-ionic and preferentially-covalent are very nice ways of subdividing what it seems we've decided to call the chemically active nonmetals.

Other things on the plus side: "preferentially" nicely incorporates the fuzziness factor into the names themselves and "covalent" vs "ionic" is seems so much more concrete a distinction, even considering the fuzziness of the border, than setting some value on a scale such as electronegativity. The latter may be more quantitative, but I think that even the casual reader would tend to suspect that the dividing line seems arbitrary and the more experienced professional might suggest that the numeric dividing line was chosen in order to produce the categorization that one's intuition prefers.
 * (Of course, all of this just reinforces my own intuitive preference to use qualitative distinctions for categorization as opposed to quantitative ones.)

So what do you think about subcategorizing the NM into "noble gases" and "chemically active nonmetals" and then subdividing the latter into "preferentially ionic nonmetals" and "preferentially covalent nonmetals"? Are there any chemically active nonmetals that don't really exhibit a clear preference one way or the other? That, of course, would kill this suggestion IMO.

I'd stick this comment into your discussion, but I couldn't quickly figure out where. Feel free to dismiss this thread with a quick comment here, but if you think it might prove fruitful, insert it into the context of your ongoing discussion. YBG (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just thought of another alternative that might work better: typically ionic nonmetals and typically covalent nonmetals. Not sure which I prefer from a semantic point-of-view, but 'typically' is shorter than 'preferentially' and all else being equal, shorter wins in my book. YBG (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the trouble is that it depends a great deal on what you are bonding those elements to, so that even O and the halogens have a great deal of covalent chemistry too – as all first-year organic chemistry students will tell you. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be a problem if the proposed names were "exclusively" covalent/ionic. But might it still be possible to say that a NM is "predominately" or "typically" covalent/ionic? What would a chart look like if we created a table where one dimension (rows/cols) were the 11 NM in question and the other dimension (cols/rows) were the entire set of elements, or at least some appropriate lower-Z subset, and the cells were colored once color for "exclusively covalent", another color for "exclusively ionic" and something in the middle for "it depends on things". Might that chart not give us some broad-brush-strokes insight? Or maybe not. YBG (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it depends on what you are bonding it to. Ionicity happens if the two bonding atoms are far apart in electronegativity, loosely speaking, so even with O or F you cannot get total ionicity. For example Si–O and Si–F bonds are clearly covalent and the nonmetals (which are very common) are more electronegative than Si. N is somewhat weakened by the high negative charge it must bear as an anion but the high coordination numbers found with Li3N tells us that already Li–N is enough of a difference to cause ionicity, to a first approximation. And even with C, you can get significant ionicity if you have an electropositive metal like Na or K involved in organosodium and organopotassium compounds (e.g. NaMe, KMe, which really can be thought of as K+Me−!). I agree that there are "predominantly covalent" ones like P which are too close to the middle to ever have real ionicity, but there are no predominantly ionic nonmetals. Double sharp (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

There is some merit to an 11 x 92 chart for applicable binary compounds of the elements in (I guess) their most common oxidation states. Crudely speaking, when the 11 bond among themselves you get covalent compounds. When the 11 (minus O and the halogens) bond with metals you mainly get covalent compounds, except for some compounds with the group 1–3 metals. As I understand it, it's the other way round with O and the halogens, thus: "Most metal oxides and halides are ionic solids".R1 That said I've always been curious as to what degree the distinction between (a) O and the halogens, and (b) the other nonmetals, as far as their ionic/covalent chemistry goes, applied to iodine.

Noting that bond strengths of the elements with one another are a pretty good indicator of electronegativity,R2 there is that table from Snyder,R3 who took the same approach, rating the elements according to their bond strengths with F, O, and Cl.


 * 1. Brown TL, LeMay HE & Bursten BE et al. 2013, Chemistry: The central science, 3rd ed., Pearson Australia, Sydney, p. 240
 * 2. Williams AF 1979, A theoretical approach to inorganic chemistry, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, p. 186
 * 3. Synder MK 1966, Chemistry: Structure and reactions, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 235–241, 242–243

Sandbh (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is of course important to note that ionicity to covalency is really a spectrum and not only can you have compounds that look fairly intermediate (e.g. some semiconducting TM sulfides), things can also depend greatly on the oxidation state (e.g. PbCl2 is rather ionic while PbCl4 is rather covalent!). Double sharp (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree; that is why I referred to the elements in their most common oxidation states which, in the case of Pb, is +2. Sandbh (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the d-block still messes with it a great deal, for example in things like MoF6 and WF6. As usual it is less about which oxidation states are common than how high they are, because elements are more electronegative in higher oxidation states. Double sharp (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

As a generalisation it should hold, and compared to the intermediate nonmetals I'd be quite surprised if there wasn't a significant difference. I had a look at the Phillips & Williams table of the oxides. Out of 62 metals (they don't show the An) 49 are rated by them as ionic for the most common oxidation state of the element in question = 79% (provisional, subject to re-checking and confirmation in slow time). Sandbh (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My general impression is that N and the chalcogens (all the way down to Po in things like potassium polonide IIRC) will give ionic compounds only with the most electropositive metals; that O and the halogens will give them with most of the metals; but in very hard cases, only O and F will do the trick. For example SnO2 and SnF4 are ionic, while SnCl4, SnBr4, and SnI4 are clearly covalent. So in a sense this creates three "tiers" for the most part, with {O, F} clearly towering over everything else, and {Cl, Br, I} respectable nonmetals that know where to draw the line. For sure oxidation state is a factor too, so that halogenating Re gives ReF7, ReCl6, ReBr5, and ReI4 respectively. I suspect that iodine looks better than it otherwise might because it is not good at bringing elements to their highest possible oxidation state, so that the electronegativity difference is not so attentuated as it would be for things like SnCl4. Double sharp (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. Once again I suspect that {Bi, Po, At} are really in a similar position to {Ge, As, Se}, where the middle member of both sets is surprisingly more metallic than the other two! Even Bi2O3 isn't even ionic; it's a semiconductor! In light of this I am inclined to think that At would probably be fairly nonmetallic in its bulk chemistry, but may well deserve to be called a metalloid for its bulk physical properties, since as we know trace At chemistry is rather like trace iodine chemistry in which iodine acts against its bulk nature and merrily forms cations. Tennessine might then be analogous to tellurium here, where the cationic tendencies start to become more real. I suppose we could classify the p-block metalloids as cases when both chemical and physical metallicity are very weak, whereas on the d-block only the chemical metallicity is. Unfortunately the only one of these elements we have a good picture of is Bi, which is a pity as I would want to see how Lv behaves (Mc is at least predicted to form the Mc+ cation and with such an oxidation state it should not be much worse than Ag+ or Tl+) to complete the picture (and maybe also Og!). Double sharp (talk) 06:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. It seems to me that the situation of Po is quite a lot like that of Sn. Po has two allotropes, cubic α and rhombohedral β, of which the α form is the more metallic one and the stable one at STP. The allotropic situation of Sn is meanwhile too well-known to require comment. Both have II and IV as their main oxidation states (PoVI not being very well-established), and for both MIV has a quite nonmetallic chemistry while MII is pretty clearly metallic. I think the reason I am more comfortable with calling Po a metalloid than calling Sn as such is probably because SnII is quite stable and significant while PoII really isn't (it reduces water to form PoIV, although that is helped of course by the radioactivity). So Sn chemistry is mostly metallic, with a few exceptional cases like SnIVO2 and SnIVF4 making it even more so, while Po chemistry tends to skew towards nonmetallicity with HPoO3− being its most stable species in neutral aqueous solution. Lv is predicted to have a similar cubic α and rhombohedral β allotrope as well, but its article notes that LvII should be more stable than LvIV, so it ought to be more like Sn. Well, I think my personal metalloid list may well include the Wikipedia seven plus {Se, Bi, Po}, with a note on the possibility for Ts, and perhaps an apology for Sn and possibly also Lv! Double sharp (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The 92×11 table
Key:
 * c Covalent
 * d Depends
 * i Ionic
 * x Not yet marked

Halides and iodides
I had a look at Wiberg's Inorganic chemistry (2001) as I was curious to learn more about the ionic v covalent nature of the metallic iodides.

So I tallied the number of simple stable binary metal halides they mentioned and this number got to 539.

Of these 539 halides, 117 were iodides.

I then read the accompanying text to see what it had to say about the nature of these iodides. Sometimes the text was clear; at other times it was less clear so I relied mainly on structure type.

My count for the number of ionic halides got to 69, which is 59% of the sample size.

Bear in mind that these are preliminary figures.

I may have a look at the sulfides next as sulfur may be the next most nonmetallic element in this sense. Sandbh (talk) 06:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems my 92x11 idea was way too simple, in being based on the idea of a single compound for each combination. Sigh. YBG (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)