User talk:John

A Note on threading: Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply. Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page. If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it. If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it. I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to. please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy

(From User:John/Pooh policy)

Click to show archived versions of this talk page

User talk:John/Archive 2006 User talk:John/Archive 2007 User talk:John/Archive 2008 User talk:John/Archive 2009 User talk:John/Archive 2010 User talk:John/Archive 2011 User talk:John/Archive 2012 User talk:John/Archive 2013 User talk:John/Archive 2014 User talk:John/Archive 2015 User talk:John/Archive 2016 User talk:John/Archive 2017 User talk:John/Archive 2018 User talk:John/Archive 2018-2022 User talk:John/Archive 2022-2024

Chemistry project discussion Hi John, I would appreciate if you could have a look at my proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Hydride compound article names. Plasmic Physics (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC) I took a look at your proposal. What is the benefit of this proposal? --John (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC) I'll summarise what I've explained there. There are two ideas being covered, the first is to direct readers, who are novices in chemistry, to the correct compound, for which they only know the stoichiometry or the component elements; the second is to inform the novice reader that there exist related compounds with the same name as what they might be using to search for (disambiguation). It is thus for practical reasons. On reconsideration, I favour the compromised proposal over the original. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Is there evidence that readers find the current arrangement confusing? John (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Yes, there is some. A while ago, an editor confused cadmium dihydride, which is named simply Cadmium hydride for cadmium monohydride, and caused an incident. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Well, Cadmium hydride was, mistakenly, for a long time about CdH/Cd2H2, not about CdH2 where it was supposed to be on (a misreading of the references, I think). You, Plasmic Physics were editing it in that state (and you then likely were evenly confused as all other editors working on it), until later it was updated to be about CdH2. I can agree that this instance is maybe a confusing one, but that is not the same as most of the renamings you suggest on the Chemistry WikiProject - Calcium hydride almost exclusively points to CaH2, no-one will call that material 'Calcium two hydride' or 'Calcium dihydride'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note, that since Cadmium hydrides are relatively rare and unstable, and more of an academic interest, I could see that this article is actually about all possible hydrides, not about one specific. The situation seems similar as the similarly relatively unstable Thallium hydrides in the 'Thallium hydride' article. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC) I get it. Do more metals have one hydride or more than one hydrides? --John (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC) All metals have more than one hydride, although, each metal has a most stable/common hydride. The proposal has the intent of being proactive, rather than reactive with respect to disambiguating in the most natural way, emphasising the 'natural disambiguation' policy at WP:AT. The chosen names are legitimate, and as minimally contrived as possible. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC) As Plasmic Physics says, most metals (not all) have multiple possibilities, but for quite some, only one is the by far most 'normal' one. E.g. CaH2 is the regular hydride, which everyone addresses as 'Calcium hydride' (not 'Calcium two hydride', following the more correct 'Calcium(II) hydride'-name). Sodium hydride and Potassium hydride is the same (where it is near silly to add the '(I)' - other oxidation states than 0 and +1 are excessively rare for those elements). CaH, 'Calcium(I) hydride' exists, but that is an academic rarity (I even doubt if it should get a Wikipedia article). Then you have the metals which have 2 or more 'most abundant' oxidation states (I think to most, Fe(II) and Fe(III) will be the most known one with 2 very stable oxidation states, elements like Ti, V, Cr, Mn are extreme - every thinkable oxidation state is 'stable' enough and most oxidation states lead to compounds of general interest; Sc then again is with a far majority +3, with only minor academic interest for +1 and +2, and most chemists would not even really consider +1 and +2 for those elements), where there is a reasonable chance of confusion and where disambiguation is necessary. Then there are the cases where there are multiple hydrides known, but none of them of real significance (which I feel is the case for Thallium and likely for Cadmium) - all hydrides are just of academic interest, have not been made in significant accounts, and are not used as important reagents for further reactions. For those I would suggest that the article is about all of them, as I feel that the concept of 'the hydride of element X' is encyclopedic, even for the reasons why it is unstable, or to answer the question 'the elements left, right and up, down in the periodic table all have their hydrides, why are these so unstable'. In short, there is no one hat that fits all cases. I strongly oppose having the article for 'Calcium(II) hydride' at that name, that one should be at 'Calcium hydride' (the name that everyone uses; same goes for diborane, technically the dimer of boron(III) hydride), for elements where 2 (or more) oxidation states lead to notable hydrides, the distinction should be made using the oxidation-state-indicator (following the naming 'element(II) hydride', 'element(III) hydride'), and for some the article 'element hydride' should be about all possible hydrides. No rules, no system, no natural disambiguation, just following the common names. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC) Thank you both for explaining. I think I agree with Beetstra that there is no "one size fits all" solution. --John (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC) An AfD, initiated by User:Plasmic Physics, of Mercury hydride was mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Mercury_hydride. I have responded to that, with the strong suggestion, again, that User:Plasmic Physics leaves naming and nomenclature issues alone for a long time (at least a year or two), and the request that they withdraw the AfD. Please comment there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC) I am insulted that you would so emphatically state that I misunderstand both AfD discussion and nomenclature, without offering an opportunity to defend myself. It completely undermines my credibility with regard to the topic. Please amend your comment in the AfD. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Just calling it how I see it. Do you have evidence that you understand AfD and chemical nomenclature? --John (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC) John, that is not how things work. In the outside world it is considered honourable for the accuser to provide evidence. Plasmic Physics (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC) This is not a court, and I am not the only one to see it like this. AfD is not needed for the sort of proposal you have in mind, and your proposal is out of step with chemical nomenclature. Sorry if this comes across as harsh but you really should avoid this whole area for a while as you are wearing people's patience thin. --John (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Re topic ban Hello John, maybe you remember me from a few weeks and month back, when i got topic banned for vaccine topics. I require now a clarification if this ban means either, QUOTE from Wikipedia:Editing restrictions = Topic ban The user is prohibited from editing either (1) making any edits in relation to a particular topic, (2) particular pages that are specified in the ban; and/or, (3) any page relating to a particular topic. Such a ban may include or exclude corresponding talk pages. QUOTE END As i understand im not restricted to talk pages. I'm asking because i recently edited the page ZMapp, which might include the topic of vaccines in the near future. Am i allowed to edit this page and related pages to the current Ebola outbreak? Since last year, there have been no incidents, involving me related to the topic in question. Thanks, for clarifying this for me. prokaryotes (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC) Where was your topic ban discussed? Before I refresh my memory, I generally think it best not to even resemble someone who is probing around the edges of a ban. --John (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC) Ok, thanks. The thread is here.prokaryotes (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC) Thank you for the link. If I were you I would stay well away from anything even tangentially related to vaccines. --John (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC) When i appeal this ban, i just post to the ANI board? Thanks for the infos, John. prokaryotes (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Sounds reasonable. There or at WP:AN. If you've been editing productively and can articulate what you were doing wrong and how it will be different going forward, I am sure you will be fine. John (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Help Morning John. How you getting on? I'm looking for a bit of advice. On my mobile phone wiki when I search nearby I can see all of my articles come up. However there is two articles that don't show up. They are Lamont Farm and Formakin House. I don't know if I have put the coordinates wrong on it in some way. Its annoying because all the rest work. Any chance you can take a look and see what I'm doing wrong.--Discolover18 (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Will look later today. Not much of an expert on geotagging though. --John (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Neither am I. However I done the rest ok. Its annoying. They all show up, just not they 2. Any help much appreciated. Cheers--Discolover18 (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Perhaps asks Andy when he returns from the Wikimania honours, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Good idea. Meantime I believe I have corrected the former location, but I was unable to do so for the latter. --John (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Civility Hi, John. I don't remember ever having any interaction with you before this, but I see you have left a message on my talk page accusing me of being "passive aggressive". Since you don't explain exactly what you mean by this, I interpret this to mean you must be upset or in disagreement with me about something. I would remind you that the WP:Civility policy considers snide, personal, or aggressive remarks to be "uncivil", as well as rudeness, insults, name-calling, and belittling. I find your remark to be offensive and hurtful, as well as a derogatory and deeply insensitive reference to persons with actual psychiatric disorders, some of whom struggle with their afflictions for years, not to mention their increased mortality and morbidity rates. The WP:No personal attacks policy also forbids insulting or disparaging an editor. I'm not sure I discern the purpose of your query about the retirement banner. Whenever someone brings this up, it's usually because they disagree with me about something, and want me to hurry up and leave, instead of discussing the real issue. In case your query is a bona fide question and not a rhetorical one, there is a link to a statement about it at User talk:Neotarf/Other stuff. As far as all the links you have posted on my talk page, without any explanation of what I am supposed to notice about them, I could respond to them a little better if I understood why I am being exhorted to "read them again". Perhaps this is some indirect attack regarding my cognitive skills. I note that you are an admin, however I do not see any indication on your user pages of any recognition of any responsibilities that might come with that role. Would you tell me if you have a recall process, if so, where one might find it? Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC) User:John,it's this inability to understand a simple and good faith message that lead us to a wasted week of everyone's time and a denied Arb case. User:Neotarf take it to ANI if you want to keep stirring the shit pot but a recall isn't going to happen because he agreed with another administrator, User:Bishonen, that your actions were passive aggressive. A reasonable editor can see this but that's why he told you that you were too invested because you aren't making much sense at this point/ Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)