User talk:EdChem

Welcome!

Hello, EdChem, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metallocene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, link should have pointed to valence (chemistry). EdChem (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Please

Kindly keep your opinion about me to yourself, you dont know me, or how intelligent I am. And yes, I am taking what you said as a personal attack. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This post follows on from my comment at WP:AN. Following advice from MBisanz, I am confident that my comments (particularly that the "path you appear to be on is not (in my opinion) a wise one, regardless of the merits of the dispute") were not a personal attack but were rather good advice which JonnyBonesJones unfortunately chose not to consider. I have not further interacted with JBJ but have noted his two recent blocks for edit warring and his ongoing criticisms of other editors offering advice, and concluded that he is not at present open to considering external views; I conclude my decision to dis-engage was in my best interests.  :) EdChem (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tantalum(V) ethoxide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ethyl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Link should point to the ethyl group page, now corrected. EdChem (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Zeitschrift für Naturforschung

Hi, actually, the literal translation of this title is "Journal for Nature Research" ("für" = for and "Forschung" = "research"), with "nature" interpreted in its broadest sense. "Nature Sciences" would be "Naturwissenschaften" in German. Just a pedantic note :-) --Randykitty (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem changing the translation to Journal for Nature Research, my German is terrible so I have to defer to the experience of others. EdChem (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

How is my edit "Pointy"?

Qwyrxian said on his page that it was ok to remove flags on the Formula One page because it violates MOS:FLAG. And you accuse me of being pointy? How about you read what he said on this page yourself? I used to his so people know why the flags were taken down, not to be pointy. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

1. The list does not violate MOS:FLAG, as I have explained on the article's talk page.
2. Qwyrxian did not say what you are claiming, and even if he had, you remain responsible for your edits.
3. Your arguments in MMA areas are for inclusion of flags, yet you are removing them on the F1 article, accompanied by edit summaries suggesting your reason is because of what an admin has said, not because you are trying to improve encyclopaedic content. Further, your edit summaries suggest that you are not responsible for your edits, which is wrong. This fits squarely within the area covered by WP:POINT.
4. You have suggested at the talk page that I am failing to assume good faith, but your actions indicate you are not seeking to improve encyclopaedic content. Your actions are disruptive, I am simply being honest in saying so.
5. You might have been on more solid ground until you reverted me... your first revert (the flag removal) could be defended as BOLD, and my revert followed the BRD cycle. I started a discussion and invited comment, and you have posted but instead of waiting for the discussion to continue and for consensus to develop, you have reverted again... that's the start of edit warring and you've been blocked for that twice recently. Please stop being so combative and try a more discursive approach.
6. Please let's discuss article content on article talk pages so that other editors may participate more easily.

EdChem (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

1 Yes it does

2 Oh yes he did

3 I want flags on all articles, but it's against the rules in both cases, from what I heard.

4 You are, and still are, how is following wikipedia's guidelines disruptive?

5 I am not edit warring, and I am not being combative.

6 I'm doing that right now.

JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

JonnyBonesJones, in this discussion at Qwyrxian's talk page I gave my opinion that "you are heading towards being blocked for disruptive editing" and you are currently blocked for 31 h for disruption and canvassing as part of an ANI discussion. I suggested that "your removal of the flags will not stand for F1 articles" and those changes have been reverted and you have been banned from altering flags on MMA or other articles for six months. I am surprised that the ANI discussion has got to a proposed indefinite (not infinite) block so fast, but that is where you have been heading, as I have tried to suggest to you both at Qwyrxian's page and earlier when you accused me of making a personal attack. You responded that you "disagree with everything [I] just said, and [you were choosing] to disregard everything [I] said in favor of wikipedia's policy and guidelines, which I am trying to follow to the letter". I am all in favour of following policy and guidelines, but as the ANI discussion shows your interpretation of them is not consistent with community consensus. I am not going to support an indefinite block because I am still willing to accept that you are well-intentioned. However, to be an effective member of the community it is vital that you learn to listen and consider the views of others. You need to consider that you might be incorrect in your interpretations at times. You need to appreciate that collaborative editing within a consensus model means at times accepting outcomes with which you disagree. I can respect your view that flags should be included with MMA articles - I certainly included them when I edited in that area, but I also recognise that consensus now seems to be that they should be removed per MOS:FLAG. You don't have to agree with that consensus, you are free to try to persuade others that your view is preferable; but, you do have to abide by the consensus until it changes. Disrupting coverage of other sports to illustrate your concerns is never acceptable and on a practical level it is counter-productive as it obscures your concerns behind behavioural misconduct. I know you have little regard for my views, which I accept, and so you may choose to continue disregarding what I say. You have that right. Be aware, however, that your current situation is akin to driving towards a brick wall... you can keep going and hit the wall (get blocked indefinitely) or you can change direction. I don't know how far away from the wall you are, but I do know it's getting closer. The choice, as always, is yours. EdChem (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Reviews of chemist articles at FAC

Apologies if this request is a bit out of the blue, but I'm looking for someone willing to have a look at the chemistry parts of the article James Bryant Conant, which is currently being reviewed at FAC. The review is here. I'm not the nominator, but I've been reviewing it and was hoping someone with more than an undergraduate level of chemistry (me) would be willing to have a look. I was going to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry, but I see the two articles currently at FAC (and two recently finished there) are already listed in a box at the side. The other one is Josiah Willard Gibbs in case you are interested in that as well. If you are not interested or don't have time, no worries, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to ask. Carcharoth (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)