User talk:EdChem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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:

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)

Hello[edit]

Hey EdChem, I noticed that you haven't edited in over a month. I hope everything is okay with you! Cheers --Imminent77 (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Imminent77, and thanks for stopping by. I've had more than my share of off-wiki issues and don't know what my immediate future holds, but I do appreciate that you visited to check on me, your kindness is appreciated.  :) EdChem (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

re: Request assistance - polish language sources in a DYK nomination[edit]

I can confirm the Alt2 hook ref is correct, I didn't see any other issues. Cheers! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Piotrus, I'm glad that you could provide a comment as a native speaker of Polish.  :) Regards, EdChem (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#RfA post GoldenRing[edit]

Re: "Please can we keep this a discussion and avoid arguing and posts which degenerate towards fights" The discussion started as a fight. It started with some bad faith assumptions and attacks on the 'crats, doomsday predictions, and threats of future manipulation. That's about as bad as a discussion can start. I don't feel regret at calling those three out on it in the same language.--v/r - TP 02:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

TParis, I started the WT:RfA thread titled "RfA post GoldenRing" in which I made the comment which you quote in collapsing an increasingly heated exchange. I do not believe I started it as a fight, that I made bad-faith assumptions, attacked the 'crats, made doomsday predictions, or threatened anything, which I ask you to acknowledge. I explained how I saw WJBscribe's comment and asked that I be corrected if my interpretation was seen as unreasonable and sought input about possible consequences for future RfAs. It was forward-looking and not meant as another discussion on the 'crat decision on GR or in the early decision on Godsy. I am disappointed that you and others imported the tone and aggression of the preceding GR v Godsy CratChat thread into the separate (though related) discussion which I sought to initiate. A discussion need not become an argument or a fight, and I am saddened that you did not see my thread and posting as an invitation to a discussion but rather as an opportunity to continue a conflict. EdChem (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
My comment on your talk page was mistaken. I didn't mean the thread that you started, but rather the thread above it. I'm sorry if I implied you started the fight, that was wrong. Although, while your effort was a good one, I couldn't imagine four equal signs walling off the heat.--v/r - TP 03:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for acknowledging your mistake, TParis, it is appreciated. I did try to start the discussion with a better tone and direction and asked for civility, so I did try more than just four equal signs, but you are correct that I was unsuccessful in "walling off the heat."
On a related matter, may I suggest to you that your question at Dane's RfA is an unhelpful continuation of the fight and raises the difficult issue of what is an attempt to "manipulating the result"? Is a candidate following advice to only start an RfA when s/he has a week with good availability an attempt at manipulation or just common sense for anyone contemplating an RfA? What about avoiding conflict for a month before, or !voting in AfDs to increase participation or percentage agreement, or pushing through a couple of DYKs as evidence of audited content contribution? If a candidate seeks opinions off-wiki from a couple of respected Wikipedians, must that be disclosed as a potential form of coaching? What about unsuccessful requests to be nominated, or a nominator's input on the three standard questions - coaching? manipulation? both?
I recognise that you believe that you have a right to know if a candidate has been advised by BU Rob13, but you did not ask that direct question, instead fishing for the answer with a broad question that asked if the candidate had attempted to manipulate the RfA. That is not fair to Dane, in my opinion, and does not present yourself in a positive light either. If Rob being connected to a candidacy in some way causes you to look more closely, then so be it, but please remember that it is only fair to assess Dane based on his actions and record. Taking a position that Rob having offered advice taints a candidacy beyond redemption would look to me like advancing a conflict with Rob rather than providing a fair and reasonable assessment of any RfA candidate, which I would argue would be a grounds for opposition which would deserve little weight. EdChem (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't really want to drag anything on, but I'm not sure what you see as manipulation in my comment, TParis. This isn't me being facetious; I think we've had a miscommunication along those lines somewhere. I'm not trying to give some sneaky advice to a candidate to trick the community. I'm trying to advise certain candidates what type of record passes at RfA. This is advice very similar to what exists on-wiki, except mine is more up-to-date (in my opinion). It's not about deceiving the community; it's about taking a clueful editor and encouraging them to do the things the community would like to see in potential admins. That's a good thing, in my book. It means more candidates will come about which the community agrees will be good admins. ~ Rob13Talk 03:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@EdChem, no, I do not. Knowing if someone was taught how to pass an RfA is important to knowing whether we are evaluating them or evaluating their coach. @BU Rob13, I see your olive branch to reach out but I still firmly disagree. Coaching an admit candidate to do or not do certain things which is opposed to their natural inclination is manipulation. Candidates should not act differently to pass the mop than they would with the mop. It presents an untrue view of their personality and habits for the community to judge. Encouraging a candidate to perform certain tasks or avoid certain areas that they would otherwise have done the opposite is manipulating RfA. Especially if done in private.--v/r - TP 12:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
First, I don't think telling them to edit in different ways is giving a view other than what they'd do with the mop. For instance, I avoided ANI for a long time before my RfA at the advice of someone else, and so I developed into an editor who avoids ANI "for real". It shaped my development rather than being some type of facade. I would never tell an editor to lie at RfA, so my advice would never include telling them to avoid one area, not mention it at RfA, and then go nuts there afterwards. I would tell them that maybe they should develop themselves as a candidate doing less controversial things, which they should continue after getting the mop (and gradually expand, possibly, as all admins do - the things I do as an admin today are very different than what I did when elected just due to changing interests). Second, I think in the absence of encouraging candidates to develop in the "right" way to pass RfA, we'd have very few new admins. There aren't that many people who genuinely want to be content creators, close discussions, handle niche areas, handle administrative backlogs, fight vandalism, participate at AfD, etc etc all at once. Encouragement to develop in different ways is all over the RFA advice page and different candidate criteria pages. Lastly, just to explain why I give advice in private, I do so because there's at least one group of editors I know of that would oppose any candidate I put up because of a very trivial content disagreement that we had in the past. I won't name names, but see the oppose section of my RfA. I don't want my name to bring ~5 opposes upon a candidate totally unrelated to their qualifications. That wouldn't be fair to the candidate. ~ Rob13Talk 22:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Don Benton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Environment Protection Agency (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) 09:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, I meant the United States Environmental Protection Agency. EdChem (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)