User talk:EdChem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you're here to respond to a comment I posted on your talk page, feel free to reply on your talk page so the question and answer are together. I tend to watch the talk pages to which I have posted comments. If you want to leave me a message, I'll respond here unless you ask me to reply somewhere else. If you do ask me to respond on your talk page, I may well copy responses here as well, so that there is a coherent version of the conversation in at least one place. EdChem 21:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Contents

[edit] Hi EdChem

Now we're getting friendly, as we all are in WP:Chem, please call me Wim. And I do agree with your feedback on the WT:Chem page about layout of chemical reactions (apart from the centering). Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC).

Thanks, Wim - and by all means, feel free to shorten me to 'Ed'. I'm sure working together we WP:Chem-ers can continue to improve Wikipedia. As for the formatting, the world would be a boring place if we all held the same views! EdChem (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey, thanks for the support on the lead(II) nitrate. Now some more people to put in the Support word to make sure. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC).
No problem - I'm happy to support now that I am comfortable with the content. By the way, I added the enthalpy of formation value, but am not sure how to put in the reference. Would you please add them in, so I can have a look at what the formatting should be? The details are: Aylward, G. H. & Findlay, T. J. V. (2008). SI Chemical Data (6th edition). Milton, QLD: John Wiley & Sons Australia. ISBN 0-470-81638-4. EdChem (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You would put a ref, using the {{cite book}} template just after the last period.[1] This would show up as follows:
  1. ^ Aylward, G.H.; T.J.V. Findlay (2008). SI Chemical Data, 6th edition, Milton, Queensland: John Wiley & Sons Australia. ISBN 0-470-81638-4. 

[edit] Ununoctium FAC

I have gone through your comments and made some suggestions. If you have time, you are welcome to take a quick look at the article again. Thanks! Nergaal (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nergaal, I did notice that you had gone through my comments, but I didn't reply as I didn't really have more to add. When I first commented, I had two issues - content, and whether it was suitable to be an FA given the narrowness of the topic. So, I commented on the content issues, and didn't vote to Support or Oppose because I think I'm too new to be sure about my FA concern. I was going to add a comment to this effect, but found that a decision had been made to promote. I am pleased for you that it was granted FA status (congratulations!) and will bear this example in mind in future cases. Cheers. EdChem (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subpages

Hi there. To create a subpage, just go to your user pages and type "/Name" in the URL after the "User:EdChem" bit, where "Name" is the name of the page, and hit return. Or just create a link. eg. User:EdChem/Drafts and click on that link to start editing it. Save, and the page will be created for you. Simple! :-) To keep track of your userpages, use Special:Prefixindex, and select "User" and type in your name. For other special pages, see Special:Specialpages. For what is acceptable in userspace, see WP:USER (that guideline is a bit long, but probably worth reading anyway - should mostly be common sense). Any questions, please ask here, or other users, or read the WP:HELP pages, or ask at WP:HELPDESK. Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Saw your comment and replied. I'll see how it looks in a week, but it's probably to my benefit to have the suggestion out there. Adam Cuerden talk 00:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Hoffman ArbCom comment

Hi there. I saw your long comment at the ArbCom case. You make some excellent points (some of which had been made, but doubtless got lost in the noise) and some new points as well. I agree very strongly with the point that admins can feel unable to act in cases of bad blocks, and I have some more to say as well, but there is a lot to respond to there! Just wanted to thank you for saying all that (and it was a rewrite as well!). Carcharoth (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Carcharoth, I'm glad someone has read it, and I hope the ArbCom members think about it as the situation looks really bad to a newcomer. I'm not surprised that admins feel can feel powerless in bad block cases, and whilst I suspect one motivation for this case was to try to address this, the present finding really just encourages admins to stay away from reviewing actions. I know I repeated some points made before - primarily those I thought were important and seemed to not be considered in the decision - but I thought a single comprehensive view might be seen as more helpful (and FYI, the rewrite was longer!). I notice today that the category:Queer Wikipedians deletion review example I used has been closed with 'deletion endorsed' without addressing any of the policy issues. My confidence in this place is dropping, unfortunately. EdChem (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
PS, I just came across your comments on how some good may come from the case regarding documentation of sock puppetry cased. Just FYI, I commented on it (positively and in passing) in my first draft, but foget the second time. I agree that this a possible positive outcome, and is also something that the Committee could note in obiter dictum comments. EdChem (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ed, Thanks for answering my question (below) I'm not sure I got around to acknowledging that. I do appreciate it.
I saved your comment from the Matthew Hoffman case some time ago and just got around to reading it today. I'm glad to see new people taking such an interest, even though my experience like yours has been that it's not always appreciated. Anyway I wanted to tell you that I enjoyed reading it and appreciate the time you took to think about it and write about it. That was an interesting and rather sobering case for new people to come across right away. I was especially interested in your comment early on about encountering people who have learned to game the system; I've sure found that as well. Regards, Woonpton (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Woonpton. I was (and remain) happy to help, but it's always nice to have one's efforts acknowledged. I am also pleased to hear that someone read my comments on the MH case, because I don't get any sense that it made any impact on the ArbCom members. If you're watching ArbCom, have a look at the mess that is the Mantanmoreland case - there's nearly half of meg of criticism of the proposed decision, which appears to have little chance of leading to any change in the direction of the decision - so I'm bit sure they've learned much from the MH experience. As for gaming the system, I know you are aware of RA's expert withdrawal comments, so you know that there are a fairly large number of science- and academic-types who are concerned - but not much is happening. The fact that so many gamers together led to the loss of a fantastic science-minded editor is a major tragedy. The constant reports on ScienceApologist to WP:AE also show the gamers are still active and gnawiing away at neutrality. I really have my doubts about this place, which is really disappointing... Best, EdChem (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I share your doubts and concerns, as you know. I can't urge any rational person to stay with the project, because the atmosphere is so toxic and crazy-making and more and more sympathetic to fringe views, but of course the encyclopedia will become even more of a laughingstock in the real world if it can't attract editors who are capable of thinking critically and evaluating ideas on their merits, and if the project as a whole doesn't value those skills. Especially on the controversial articles where anti-rational forces are toiling ceaselessly and won't give up til they exhaust the opposition and get their way, there is little incentive for reasonable people to waste their energy trying to make a difference. As someone said on one of those discussions, it's like plowing the sea. What I don't understand is, do these people really want the result they seem to be advocating for, a return to the Dark Ages? Why would anyone want that? Well, enough useless pondering. I'm sticking around only long enough to see if someone really does open a general RfC that addresses the central underlying division and if that comes to anything, but I have little hope for either. Take care, I wish you well. Woonpton (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red Username?

Hi Ed, I'm writing you because you were the one who welcomed me to Wikipedia and said I should feel free to ask you questions, and I can't find the answer to this at Questions or FAQ . Why is my username in red? I thought at first it must be that I'm new (silly me, I had this idea that there was a policy to be friendly to newcomers and that the red tag would alert everyone to be friendly to me, maybe?) but (1) people haven't been particularly friendly to me (they haven't been unfriendly, they've just acted as though I don't exist) and (2) today I ran across someone who just joined a few days ago and his username isn't red. So now I'm feeling very puzzled, and even a bit paranoid. Can you tell me why my username is red? Thanks (I don't know how to watch for a reply here, and don't want to keep checking back, so would you mind replying at my talk page, if you know the answer? ThanksWoonpton (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just had an idea, just after I sent you the above. I decided that the reason that my username is red might be that I haven't set up a user page.Woonpton (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Copy of my response from Woonpton's talk pge:
Hi, Woonpton, I saw your message on my talk page. You are correct about your user name being red because you have not started a user page. In fact, any red link on WP means that the page being linked to does not exist - either because it has never been created, or because it has since been deleted. Your idea of a red link to indicate a newbie user is interesting, but would be a double-edged sword. Since there are a lot of new users who are sock puppets or interested only in vandalism or are trolling, they can be met with some suspicion. I note that you have a talk page post from ScienceApologist about ArbCom proceedings, from which I am guessing you have dived into some of the more controversial areas. I have done the same, so I can understand your decision, but this also means that there may be a little more suspicion of you as a newbie from some quarters. It isn't fair, but then, what is?

Regarding watching pages, at the top of each page there are tabs for discussion (the talk page), + (add new section), history, etc. Pressing the 'watch' tab will add that page and its associated talk page (or the associated article or user or whatever page if you are on a talk pgae) to your watchlist. Your links in the top right "Woonpton my talk ..." include a link to your watchlist, where you will see a link to the most recent edit of all pages you are watching, including who made the edit, when, and what the edit summary says. This is not only useful for watching for replies to questions, but also for changes to pages you are editing or find interesting. From the 'my watchlist' link, you can also edit your watchlist, and you can remove pages from your watchlist either there or by clicking the 'unwatch' tab on a watched page.

Another thought on red links - they can also be useful if you want to create sub pages. For example, if you wanted a sub page of your user page to work on a section of an article out of the public glare, you can simply add a link by posting a talk page message that says something like [[user:Woonpton/sandbox]], which produces a red link: user:Woonpton/sandbox which you can click on to create the page. If you prefer to name it something relevant to the article, that's cool too. You can also request such pages be deleted when you no longer need them.

Regarding talk page organisation, there seem to be two distinct schools of thought. Some people prefer to respond on each other's talk pages, so that you get the orange 'new message' bar. Others prefer to keep interactions on a single page, so they are coherent. I fall into the latter group, but either way is fine. If asked to reply on another page (as you requested), I'll do so, but also tend to copy responses to my own page - that way you get the orange bar notification and I get the coherent discussion that I prefer. It's up to you what you prefer.

Finally, I know that it is easy to feel ignored. You might want to try joining a WikiProject in an area of interest, and contribute to it. Long standing editors on those projects tend to be happy to welcome and help us newbies, and can also provide someone to ask for help. Of course, you can also ask me if you like! If I don't know the answer, I'll try and point you in the direction of someone who can help. If I don't answer, I'm probably busy in real life, and so have yet to see your message. Regards, EdChem (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)