This user helped "Moons of Neptune" become a featured list on 28 July 2014.
This user helped "Alkali metal" become a good article on 2 December 2011.
This user helped "Bohrium" become a good article on 24 December 2016.
This user helped "Bromine" become a good article on 20 November 2016.
This user helped "Calcium" become a good article on 27 June 2017.
This user helped "Carbon" become a good article on 6 July 2011.
This user helped "Cerium" become a good article on 25 October 2016.
This user helped "Chlorine" become a good article on 15 December 2016.
This user helped "Darmstadtium" become a good article on 27 October 2012.
This user helped "Flerovium" become a good article on 12 September 2014.
This user helped "Gallium" become a good article on 28 September 2016.
This user helped "Hassium" become a good article on 31 December 2012.
This user helped "Indium" become a good article on 3 October 2016.
This user helped "Iodine" become a good article on 24 October 2016.
This user helped "Iron" become a good article on 18 September 2016.
This user helped "Lanthanum" become a good article on 11 July 2016.
This user helped "Lawrencium" become a good article on 9 September 2014.
This user helped "Livermorium" become a good article on 1 October 2014.
This user helped "Meitnerium" become a good article on 16 October 2012.
This user helped "Mendelevium" become a good article on 7 August 2014.
This user helped "Moscovium" become a good article on 13 September 2014.
This user helped "Neptunium" become a good article on 7 July 2014.
This user helped "Nihonium" become a good article on 20 December 2012.
This user helped "Nitrogen" become a good article on 5 January 2017.
This user helped "Nobelium" become a good article on 9 September 2014.
This user helped "Roentgenium" become a good article on 22 October 2012.
This user helped "Seaborgium" become a good article on 20 February 2017.
This user helped "Silver" become a good article on 5 May 2017.
This user helped "Strontium" become a good article on 18 November 2016.
This user helped "Thorium" become a good article on 7 September 2014.
This user helped "Thulium" become a good article on 31 August 2013.
This user helped "Unbinilium" become a good article on 23 September 2016.
This user helped "Unbiunium" become a good article on 19 June 2017.
This user helped "Ununennium" become a good article on 4 October 2015.
This user helped "Ytterbium" become a good article on 26 December 2012.

User:Double sharp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:4)
Jump to: navigation, search
en This user is a native speaker of the English language.
zh 該用戶的母語中文
fr-4 Cet utilisateur parle français à un niveau comparable à la langue maternelle.
de-2 Dieser Benutzer hat fortgeschrittene Deutschkenntnisse.
pl-1 Ten użytkownik posługuje się językiem polskim na poziomie podstawowym.
ja-1 この利用者は初級日本語ができます。
... This user would like to be able to speak some more languages.
Search user languages
UK This user uses British English.
Periodic Table by Quality.PNG This user is a member of WikiProject Elements.
Check changes to articles
This user is a member of WikiProject Solar System.
Noia 64 apps karm.svg This user has been on Wikipedia for 8 years, 4 months and 1 day.
Music ClefG.svg This user is a music composer.
Steinway Schriftzug.jpg This user plays the piano.
Editor - bufonite star.jpg This editor is a Master Editor III
and is entitled to display this
Bufonite Editor Star.

I first began to read Wikipedia in 2006 and made my first few edits as an IP starting in early February 2009. About six months later, I created this account on 7 August 2009. And now it is over eight years later! ^_^

I have had quite a few pseudonyms here before finally deciding on this one in late 2011. I'm still not sure I like it, but I haven't thought of anything better, and in any case after five years it is surely too late to change it when people know me as this now. I suppose it does put my "Wikipedia character" in the tradition of the comical music teacher Solfa from Ramond's Les Dernières aventures du jeune d'Olban (don't bother reading it, it's yet another Werther imitation), but I of course am not a character, so I do more than that.

I tend to focus on writing and improving content, which for me is after all the main thing in Wikipedia. Therefore, I tend to stick to writing what I know about and can improve, preferably to GA or FA, so that interested readers will get quality information. So far, I have only made such large-scale contributions in chemistry and astronomy, although I have made smaller-scale ones in some other fields, such as classical music, mathematics, and chess. I would like to think that my current main virtue is actually being able to think, learn, and admit to being mistaken, which has apparently become a surprisingly rare ability on most people's character sheets today (well I never) – the main vice probably being an unhealthy taste for magical girl shows.

(Besides the piano I mention in my userboxes, I did train for a while in singing and have played the harpsichord a few times, but I haven't been active in either for a long while. No doubt the former is the reason my German is so very outdated, given its source in poetic texts of a bygone age...)

I tend to use userspace drafts (see Special:PrefixIndex/User:Double sharp/ for a list) instead of writing directly into an article. This allows me to space work out and avoid burnout, and allows me to work on things in any order before the first draft of the final product comes out. To write a quality article on a subject, one has to love it, to lovingly write every bit of it from the most esoteric to the most common, and work it out in all its dimensions in research. If done well, the reader should realise how much love has been given in the writing and the text. As Beethoven wrote in the dedication to the Missa solemnis, Op. 123, Von Herzen – Möge es wieder – Zu Herzen gehn!

I don't really have that much to say about myself here, though if you want to metaphorically sit down and have a chat over some imaginary tea, my talk page is always open. ^_^

Unfortunately, though I have little to say about myself, I have too many other things to say like Piotrus (who I borrowed my talk-page header from). My userpage is currently groaning under the weight of some of this, which I will hopefully move somewhere at some point. Given that R8R Gtrs has now given me a mention on the WMF blog, doing this has become a little more urgent. ^_^

Conduct on Wikipedia[edit]

The following are some principles which I daresay would improve our experiences on Wikipedia very much:

  1. Assume good faith unless you have clear and direct evidence of recent vandalism. "Misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice. At any rate, the last two are certainly much less frequent." (Goethe, Werther) Yes, there are at this moment some nasty people working against our mission. No, the average person is not one of them. If it looks like you have found one that is totally new, take the time out to do some research: if he is really that nasty, you will need the research to find his full operations anyway, and a bit of research can easily avoid the first source of confusion Goethe mentions. And no, you are not the only defender of the faith working against them. See #4.
  2. Always remain neutral, no matter how difficult. (If you can't manage it for a topic you feel strongly about, try doing it for a topic you don't feel strongly about, and work upwards if you really want to work in that area.)
  3. Also, always cite your sources. In particular, if something has languished uncited for a while, go find a source from before it was added to WP, if you can find one. Otherwise you may just be the latest victim of citogenesis.
  4. This is a hobby and it's not worth losing sleep over. If you're not enjoying it, take a break and don't spread your misery to others. But don't leave in a fit of pique either; you will probably regret it.
  5. On a related note, do not comment while angry. If you must, perhaps for catharsis, write your comment, don't click "Save page", go browse something else, and then if you still remember, come back and laugh at what a fool you nearly made yourself out to be.
  6. Do not take this place too seriously, and always expect a good trout flying in your direction when you do something that was in hindsight not one of your better decisions. Do apologise when needed.
  7. #6 goes doubly if you take the place seriously enough to write principles, and it goes triply if you do not succeed in following the ones you laid down yourself.

My writing on Wikipedia[edit]

It can really be difficult in chemistry articles to write something that is correct, reasonably complete, and is easily understandable to the layman. Any combination of the two would be much easier. This is why reviews are invaluable! ^_^

I use British English, with the exception of sulfur and its derivatives (e.g. sulfurous, sulfuric, sulfide, etc.). (I also tend to use logical full stops like that one when no one else would probably be bothered in talk-page comments, but this wouldn't normally arise in articles.) This is mostly because of IUPAC, and is really mandated on WP only for chemistry articles, but I may unconsciously use it elsewhere (and if so, I have no problem with it being edited!)

Singular they and GNL[edit]

I don't use singular they. I used to in talk-page comments, but I always disliked how it makes it difficult to distinguish singular and plural, so I finally stopped due to lack of precision. Part of it is also assuredly because it gets highlighted mentally for me because I don't actually naturally use it when talking (yes, yes, I know that's hard to believe today, but it is true whether you like it or not). I realise that "s/he" and other such constructions are immensely ugly, but they sound a little more natural to me and have the advantage of precision - which is pretty vital to some of the articles I have worked on (particularly the chess-variant ones). Of course, it is still pretty awkward, and I would still prefer generic "he" in such a case. Alternation is pretty useful when referring to hypothetical people (e.g. White and Black in chess) and I often use it for clarity. No one – at least, I hope so, perhaps over-optimistically – could plausibly interpret that as implying that White is always female and Black is always male, or the other way round. To those who would argue that we suffer this singular-plural ambiguity with "you": assuredly we do, but at least then it should be clear who you are addressing (and you can always insert a parenthetical to clarify it anyway). "They" can be used with hypothetical people too, in which case the lack of clarity becomes all the starker. I don't care a whit how many authors used singular "they", as Language Log loves to argue; I am writing descriptive, encyclopaedic prose, not a novel, and the priorities are different. I could easily find any number of sensibly ungrammatical constructions in literature that work in context and would be utterly senselessly ungrammatical without that context.

Because of the lengthly Python quotation from the left, here is a larch tree to build skill in recognition from long distances.

Incidentally, for all that people like to say that "generic he" tends to imply a male image, I can tell you with a perfectly straight face after reading Language Log again that no, the sentence "Was it your father or your mother who could hold his breath for four minutes?" does not sound at all ridiculous to me. I do recognise that this puts me in a rapidly diminishing minority, but yes, people who actually naturally respond that way to language exist, and formal usage tends to always lag behind colloquial usage by a few decades anyhow. For me, "generic she" also works just as neutrally, but anything else tends to distract, kind of like this scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian illustrating the problem with "generic he or she" forcing the gender to your mind even when it is supposed to not matter:

FRANCIS: Yeah. I think Judith's point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man–

STAN: Or woman.
FRANCIS: Or woman... to rid himself--
STAN: Or herself.
FRANCIS: Or herself.
REG: Agreed.
FRANCIS: Thank you, brother.
STAN: Or sister.
FRANCIS: Or sister. Where was I?
REG: I think you'd finished.
FRANCIS: Oh. Right.
REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man–
STAN: Or woman.
REG: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off.

There are pretty much always better options to make text gender-neutral, although I would submit that clarity should win out when the two cannot coexist, which is actually pretty often. (Somehow, generic "she" seems to be viewed as less unsupportable than generic "he"; I suppose it's a matter of equalising the bias, and alternating between the two generic usages seems a fair approach.) Of course, there will always be the loud opposers on both sides claiming that they are excluded by generic "he", generic "she", or even generic "he or she". Somehow one never hears of opposers to generic "they", though it seems to be about the same thing logically. If one decides to obtusely and stubbornly decide that one does not have to listen to those who one thinks are excluding oneself, it is one's own loss, not anyone else's, and the ignorance that results is wilful and I have not one jot of sympathy for it. It is about the same sort of nonsense that is impossible to avoid in op-eds about gender equality in the arts, ranging from video games to literature, in which one supposedly can only identify with characters that are like oneself. Putting aside the fact that I am not sure identifying oneself with a character and circumscribing one's personality in that way is a good or even entirely sane idea – even when the great Romantic composers did that for their public faces, they invented their own characters, most famously Florestan and Eusebius – I was under the impression that one of the great reasons always adduced to start exposing oneself to all these media was to understand those who were not like oneself. Or is the idea that one cannot appreciate Goethe's Werther without wearing a yellow jacket, giving disquieting demonstrations involving pistols, pining for unattainable beloveds and shooting oneself?

I have no objection against gender-neutrality in language per se except when it results in this sort of lack of clarity, or otherwise involves using neologisms that have not yet gained currency. We are an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox for whatever new cause has been decided upon. I feel the need to write that sentence in bold because it seems that whenever I end up fighting that battle (always reluctantly) the valid reasons get overlooked in favour of the new progressive revolutionary agenda and a desire to overlook everything that doesn't conform to the desired reality as antiquated and irrelevant. In case you think I am exaggerating, see Talk:Moon#"Crewed" replacing "manned", which is an article I have just about given up on (I have not checked if it still uses "crewed" and find it difficult to be moved enough to care a whit). If you know I am not exaggerating and are depressed by the whole thing, I sympathise, and for this reason took the page off my watchlist. (It's a wonderful solution, marred only by the need to leave one's pride at the door and stop having fantasies of oneself as a fidei defensor or defensatrix, and then let it go.) If you want to leave an angry note on my talk page, please feel free to do so; I could always use more fair pearls in my diadem, even if they are tears of anger rather than grief. Consecrate them for me and be not ashamed to shed them! I assume all right-thinking people, a category you may interpret as you see fit, will immediately know which side to agree with.

Of course, if you have a preference (or if you've previously declared what gender you are) I will try to adhere to it when referring to you (I may forget and if I do I apologise here in advance). As for myself, I do not particularly care what pronouns you use for me as long as it is clear who you are addressing, though my preference would be he or she first (I don't really mind whichever you guess, or if you use both), singular they a more distant second, and any other pronoun that essentially no one to a first approximation uses a third so distant that it might as well not be a preference.

If you prefer one of those pronouns which nobody uses, the most likely result is that I will end up forgetting pretty often; I'm not even sure on Wikipedia which editors are male or female unless their username makes it pretty obvious. (I suppose some could plausibly use a username of the opposite gender, but such a practice would frankly be asking for getting addressed by the "wrong" pronoun, and would seem to almost imply an expectation of that.) If this results in a visceral and immediate reaction from you, I suppose I should apologise in advance, but alas! I find it difficult to sympathise with such a marked inability to control one's emotions, which does not bode well for one's ability to contribute in a dare I say normal environment such as this one. After all, it is not as if it is immediately physically detectable which pronoun someone would prefer, outside "he" or "she" – and even that disappears here, where we can't see each other, and know no information save that which is voluntarily given, and frankly that is probably a good thing. If it on the contrary results in a polite correction and restatement of one's preference, you shall receive a sincere and heartfelt apology, and I will try my very best not to forget when I interact with you again – neither your pronoun nor your civility.

I suppose one could argue that soon enough singular "they" will become standard. And well it may, but as it stands it is not, it rankles to a significant majority of people including myself, and I do not feel we should use it in articles. Whether one chooses to use it in discussion is entirely one's own affair, though I personally will not do so.


There are also probably going to be a few more Jupiter satellites numbered in the near future...


Add the pretty pictures for isogonal 34-gons


RM groups 13 and 14

Argh, I'd better finish radium too (10.1002/14356007.o22_o15 Ullmann is lame, but contains a few things; Gmelin should have more except that I don't have it T_T)

Update lutetium with the cassiopeium campaign (hey, Bohr got behind it, even from behind the scenes)

  1. Update /Jmol colour scheme
  2. get that picture of Morita's team (
    Kouji Morimoto, Kosuke Morita, ???
    ???, ???, ???

Rare earths: 10.1002/14356007.a22_607

mention somewhere how aluminium is almost a "group 3 element" continuing the trend up from Sc, Y, La, and Ac, probably with less lame arguments than in that other paper I remember seeing

on nonmetallicity: relate acidity/basicity of oxide to hydrolysis (from hypothetical "aquated ions" to hydroxides, following that article's organisation, calling even the acids involving the p-block elements hydroxides)

Some of our old GAs suck (carbon, thulium, I am looking at you) and will have to be fixed too. Actually most of the old transition metal GAs fall into this class. And fix that sucky section on hydrogen in the group 1 article!!!

     Articles for which I have done some rewriting, research, or both have a red outline for the cell.

     Those in violet have not yet been released to the mainspace, since they are in progress.

Regarding the composition of group 3 in this table, see User:Sandbh/Group 3. The main point is that La and Ac have no f-orbital involvement and so it is very silly to put them in the f-block. While the shift of He to the p-block for chemical reasons might be taken as a precedent for this kind of thing, it would be unjustified for La and Ac because they continue the trend down from Sc and Y better than Lu and Lr do, so there is no reason to move them. Finally, one of the basic (no pun intended) principles of the periodic table is that basicity increases down a group, and this works for Sc-Y-La but is broken for Sc-Y-Lu. If you want to show Sc-Y-Lu, you'd also logically have to show things like Be-Mg-Zn.

I have chosen to follow the old tradition for delimiting the lanthanides and actinides (Ce–Lu and Th–Lr); if we can exclude Sc and Y even though they behave similarly, then I don't see why we can't exclude La and Ac as well to have a complete d-block column. I colour group 12 as post-transition metals because it is frankly more reflective of their chemistry.

I suppose technically I should put the hypothetical elements 119, 120, and 121 on the table as they have articles which I largely rewrote, but I am quite loath to do it if they haven't yet been discovered.

The next ones will probably be the really famous elements in the first 20. The ones left are Mg, Al, Si, P, and S.

I suppose the element-by-element way of looking at thing is a very inorganic-minded approach. I would do it differently for organic compounds, except that since we look at individual elements so early in chemistry teaching I think it's a good approach to clear out the famous elements first. Maybe we'll move on in a few years?

By the way, why do so many People capitalise the Names of Elements? Surely we are not speaking German, and they are not Proper Nouns.

Reminder to self: go through IAEA's nuclear data and add all those more recent heavy isotopes which NUBASE doesn't have to the isotope articles.

Wow, 2017 has been a great deal more tiring than 2016 thus far. I promise at least to finish the things I started in that year or earlier: in fact they all have been, except for Si, As, and Ra. But I refuse to stop; this is too fun; even if it does lead one into a sort of infinite descent of finding new stuff, there is great pleasure in freefall, even if one reflects in retrospect that there were some advantages to keeping one's feet on the ground, even if it does tend to result in the sureness and complacency most characteristic of fools, and even if it results in exceptions after exceptions just like this sentence. And it shall be a continued affirmation.


Mostly, in this field I write about the First Viennese School, as that is the music I grew up with and that I love the most. I have an almost equal love for the Second, as well as many of the other 20th-century composers active in Western Europe, but I do find it more difficult to understand despite being impressed by how beautiful it sounds. This is not a criticism: the latter is already a great victory for the composer, and I think that perhaps in some time I shall be able to naturally understand it more quickly. (And, after all, I do not think my understanding of Webern's Variations improved that significantly after finding out what the tone row it used actually was, because it is already so expressive regardless of that and perhaps a conscious understanding of those elements is neither necessary nor altogether desirable – if you play enough Chopin, you will know what I mean!) As would logically follow, I also love anything overtly neoclassical (referring back to the actual Classical era), ranging from Ravel to Hindemith with a stop at Mahler along the way. ^_^ (Well, I was thinking of the Fourth when I wrote that, but who can deny the power of the 580 + 1572 measures of the Eighth?)

(Of course, I love J. S. Bach as well – that goes without saying – but I find that I much prefer playing him than listening to him. There are many things that only become obvious when they are under one's fingers, and remain out of reach when they are under one's nose.)

This of course does not stop me from loving other composers. I can surely love them before understanding completely why I do. It is just that the latter is needed for writing intelligently about them.

Entering the common-sense business[edit]

Here is another one

I must write something about cranks on WP at one point. They really do have a lot in common with the clueless but well-intentioned, who are usually young; they take their limited knowledge as the gospel truth, try to propagate it everywhere, and cannot be reasoned out of their positions. The only difference is how much sympathy I am willing to extend to them, which is obviously greater for the second group. I find that that group is more easily dealt with by stepping back and waiting for them to mature, only making sure they don't mess too many things up in the meantime. The first group will never change. Look on the bright side: you're working on an encyclopaedia, which guarantees that at least the majority of the people you encounter will be articulate and intelligent fellows. The ones who are not will likely be busy puttering around among themselves in userspace and wasting time at the Department of Fun instead of doing anything serious, so they will also stay out of your way. That leaves the tiny minority of trolls. There, does that sense of perspective make it seem so much better now? ^_^

As a generalisation, people don't learn in arguments. Indeed, attacking arguments is a good way to make them be defended more and more strongly and emotionally as their purveyor starts feeling under siege. Polemics tend to be searched for, and read without rising blood pressure, by people who already agree with them – that is, if they're not deliberately provocative statements made by gadflies, who are too clever for us naughty people. (Feel free to write a note on my talk page if you recognise where that particular turn of phrase is from; I really do wonder how many people read all of this and understand all the references.) Diving directly into the sea of insanity and not drowning yourself perforce means that you will only be able to rescue those nearest the shore.

The best way to get someone to change his/her mind (if s/he is clearly wrong and anyone with more understanding can see it) is to use a medium without comments (books are good for this), so that s/he is forced to listen to the sound of someone else's voice instead of his/her own. (This does not apply to issues where the dispute is still ongoing even at the highest level – and that means actual intellectuals. Such arguments are very exceptional, because the people who get into them, on both sides, are well-informed and are assuredly not cranks. Usually the well-informed drop arguments when they have been satisfactorily resolved; it is not so for cranks, of course.) And an amazing thing about arguments is how much people unconsciously seek them out anyway even though they should know better. An even more amazing thing is that even recognising this is not a foolproof inoculation: I have been guilty of it several times.

Above all, resist the temptation to use language commonly considered to be crude when arguing, especially with the clueless. With the clueless, this may be emotionally understandable, but it provides the best excuse for the other party to stop listening to one's content and concentrate on one's manner. It also makes it look to the person seeing only the dénouement as though one was being the initial aggressor, which does not lead to a very desirable outcome. With the non-clueless, it simply does not belong in a civilised discourse, and if one is in this situation one might just consider that the labels of 'clueless' and 'non-clueless' might have been mixed up.

The most indicative sign of development of the mental faculties and manners of a person is a willingness to respect those who have more experience in a subject. To that end, don't look for me for guidance; look for a real WP sage instead.

On immaturity and trolling[edit]

Fangirling about the past really does let you think in terms of longer spans of time, so much so that when this article came out (on collapsism regarding North Korea), and I read all those statements about how it would probably endure and the reunification would be by gradual reconciliation, I burst out laughing. There are two reasons for this. The first is, of course, that the Soviet Union lasted so long that when it finally collapsed nobody was expecting it to, whether at that moment or even at that all. The second is that, when I realise how much time has passed since the time period from the 1760s to the 1820s I keep writing about in music, what's another 20 more years? I can wait.

(Besides, I would also humbly suggest that until you really look at geological timescales – consider the half-lives of thorium and uranium, not to say bismuth – you do not truly know what "forever" means. And even then you do not know it in the body, but only in the mind.)

Seriously, it is true that this sort of nostalgia "born in the wrong century" is often overstated and over-romanticised. On the face of it, it seems patently absurd to say that you miss a time period you cannot possibly have been alive in, and I'm pretty sure that if any of those people were transported to their beloved time period they would instantly miss all the luxuries of modern life. This impression is just. Yet there is also something behind the sentiment that Brahms expressed regarding how nice it would have been to write music in the time of Mozart when composing was still easy, and it is even more true today: how nice it is to avoid the great pluralism of thought and escape to (for example) 1790, when every composer, great, mediocre, or incompetent, wrote in the same way with varying quality, and when everything was much more certain. (Actually 1790 might be a little too late for most such, because the French Revolution would already have started. But given the typical lack of research conducted by people claiming to have been "born in the wrong century", I think the poorly chosen date is actually funnier.) Today, someone who was that certain about everything would be at best amusing and immature, and at worst a complete lunatic. And yet, despite the increased ease of the former, it seems very clear that the latter has been the best route to progress on a scale that has never been seen before. Even if it like anything else brings with it some stupidity, so does everything else: after all, stupidity is more common than hydrogen.

The immaturity thing is important for Wikipedia, and it is the only reason why this essay is here. It also explains why young editors who lack the maturity are often indistinguishable from trolls; the only difference is the amount of accountability they have for their exasperating nature. They simply push the POV they are so certain of, only it's not so much related to hot-button topics like politics but things that appear clearly structured and nicely organised. This kind of neat-list sort of article, like hexafluoride or list of regular polytopes and compounds, can be stimulating and nourishing to the young mind, but they will not take too kindly to finding out that their picture is not complete once they have incorporated it into their heads. This is perhaps another argument in favour of our current anonymity, because it is so much easier to move past initial silliness and immaturity when it's not tied to your real name. (I am mildly ashamed to admit that I was rather like that when I joined WP in 2009, when I was quite justifiably blocked for similar reasons. I use the same account today to indicate that I was indeed responsible for that silliness, even though I am not really the same person today in anything other than continuity of thought.)

The relation back to the first paragraph is regarding patience. When an article is continually being edited to what one sees as the wrong version, a lack of patience and an unwillingness to discuss, and simply assuming that the status quo will continue forever, is a good way to succumb to despair on Wikipedia. While the results are thankfully not quite as physical as they are in Madoka, they are about as spectacular and destructive virtually, even if it is not always clear when the supply of good faith drains completely. (Some readers of this may be wondering if this essay perhaps stems from a bet to include references to as many topics as possible, no matter how sacrilegious some of the links may be. No, it doesn't, but I wish there was such a bet now!)

The situation is a little different in science. Here, no amount of time or patience is going to change the status quo of widely and conclusively researched like the alleged autism–vaccines link (see here for the current answer to the question of the URL). What is needed here is to escape from crankery, and while it no doubt does happen occasionally, I think the North Korean collapse I alluded to in the first paragraph is more likely than any significant number of such trolls on Wikipedia (let alone in real life) making that escape. The problem, of course, is that escaping from crankery requires a basic trust in those with more expertise, something that crankery unfortunately precludes. The immature who are caught here probably have the best chances at doing so, even if their situation is the most heartbreaking.

It might help to remember that any viewpoint held by a significant number of reliable sources – either the clear majority, or a prominent minority with respected adherents – is fair game for Wikipedia, and nothing else is. This is the nature of this website. Of course, its somewhat increased prestige amongst websites may be reason enough for one to want to push in one's fringe viewpoints in (which would hilariously damage this very prestige), but it is not reason enough for one to succeed.

How to befriend a troll[edit]

Despite the title of this section it is probably best not to befriend them into the metaphorical hospital, because then you will get indeffed too

Wait a little for them to lose interest before undoing their edits.

Oh, you mean the actual definition of the word. Unless they are of the immature variety, it won't happen. One can try to reason with them, but one will always fail.

Why I write about elements and not about myself[edit]

I present you some funny instances from the past to show you what would happen!

(Yes, I know perfectly well that it's not technically a diary.)

(Yes, one thing that is totally lost in the article is that her diary ends on March 15 with a mysterious blank entry. Presumably nothing happened again.)

Other than this I do not think I shall want to have quotes on my userpage, at least not bare quotes, because they seem to be far too easy a way out. How are my readers supposed to know what actually goes through my mind when I read the quotes?