Misplaced Pages

Welcome!

Hello, EdChem, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages
• 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Franzboas master account

Since you participated in the discussion about Dennis Brown's block of Franzboas, I'm pointing you to this, which presents some proposals for additional action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Responded and added my comments / thoughts. EdChem (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bis(cyclopentadienyl)titanium(III) chloride

Hello! Your submission of Bis(cyclopentadienyl)titanium(III) chloride at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

BlueMoonset}, I know I need to get to this. I've got issues in my life and have been only working on WP stuff that is easy, sort of as a distraction. Sorry and Thanks. EdChem (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

EdChem, apologies: I hadn't looked at my pending notifications before commenting on that page based on Antony-22's response; if I had, I probably wouldn't have set 48 hours for a "deadline" for Antony-22 to decide whether the ALT hooks could fly as is. Will this be a problem? If so, just post there and ask for more time. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Just a couple of notes

Thanks for your continuing contributions. Here are some specific and general editing suggestions that you might consider.

• Maitlis's Dewar benzene route is probably a historical footnote. I dont think anyone uses this method (Cp*H is cheap) and the method is not very general. So I worry about WP:UNDUE except in an article about hexamethyldewar benzene.
• As others have advocated, sans serif fonts are probably easier to read, if your software will allow it.
• Keep WP:SECONDARY in mind. Some of these compounds (Cp*2Rh2Cl4, rhodium trichloride) have literally thousands of citations. Citing primary references is a slippery slope down toward selecting history (a form of synthesis), whereas books and reviews keep things neutral.

Thanks for listening.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by, Smokefoot. I've added a couple of secondary refs. I wouldn't mention the Dewar benzene approaches if they weren't the first, and they are mentioned in books as well as being highly cited. There is some interest in the effects of different transition metals, too – Rh and Ir give ₂ complexs, Pt gives , and Pd gives . I'm not sure what you mean about fonts, you've lost me on that comment, sorry. You are right that some compounds are in thousands of papers, but when it comes to the synthesis (for example), I lean to something like Inorg. Synth. or the original report, supported with a secondary source (though I admit I have forgotten to add the latter at times). EdChem (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Well thanks for not being bothered. I always worry about sending "advice" to people, because I dont like getting it either and it usually comes across as arrogant. More later. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Smokefoot, I am well aware that we Wikipedians will usually produce better outcomes working together than working alone, and certainly than when warring with each other... of course, some conflicts are necessary when POV-pushing and advocacy gets involved, or in dealing with vandalism. To be absolutely clear, I welcome you stopping by to offer advice as I have no doubt that we share the same goals. However, I must admit that that may not always come across, particularly if I am not feeling at my best. I may not like the advice that I am offered, and even disagree with it at times, but I do try to consider it, reflect upon it, and to respond reasonably.

I know that we see sourcing differently, coming to content from different perspectives. For example, if I see text dealing with the discovery of ferrocene, I expect to see links to Pauson and Kealy's paper in Nature, and Wilkinson and Woodward et al. in JACS, etc. You would likely go for a broad review like (perhaps) Werner's review doi:10.1002/anie.201201598 or Astruc's more recent doi:10.1002/ejic.201600983 or one of the thousands of relevant text books (just on applications: Ferrocenes: Ligands, Materials and Biomolecules or Ferrocenes: Homogeneous Catalysis, Organic Synthesis, Materials Science) or the bioorganometallic focussed one with a general introduction from Chem. Rev. doi:10.1021/cr0101510. I have learned, over time, and certainly with your input, that the benefit for readers is served by including both types of references, satisfying the needs of a general reader and of a more specialised one who wants to see the underlying sources. I should, for example, make use of this article from New Scientist as an easier reference for the less chemically sophisticated, and the early papers here are summarised in Chem. Eng. News.

When it comes to what to include from the breadth of the literature, I still tend to want to cite the source literature but I try to follow what secondary reviews have discussed, and that selection basis may be insufficiently clear at times. For example, in my additions to trifluoroperacetic acid, my selections are heavily influence by refs 5 and 7 (both secondary), though that may not be clear to an outsider.

I do benefit from periodic reminders about WP:SECONDARY. As for the tone of advice, I worry about how I come across as well, and I've become better at recognising that some of us can come across more harshly than intended. I hope that can similarly put aside when I respond more archly than is appropriate. EdChem (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

PS: I genuinely am unclear on the serif font comment. I would appreciate clarification. EdChem (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Sans serif means that the fonts lack embellishments. Am Chem Soc, for example, recommends Helvetica, which together with Arial and Geneva, are popular sans serif fonts. Times, New Times Roman, American Century have little decorative features that, I guess, are supposed to make them look flowery and attractive. But these same features are seen by many as detracting from clarity. Here are graphics with serifs and without (sans):

File:Cp*2Rh2Cl4.png

I'll pursue the discussion on the referencing later. We are probably not so far apart. I also cite primary references in select cases: discovery, Xray, nothing else is available. I dont have anything against the collaboration, I suppose it could only be a good thing, but I like the freedom to not feel compelled to edit. In any case cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, Smokefoot, I see what you mean. I hadn't connected you were meaning the illustration! FYI, I drew the illustration in File:Hexamethyl Dewar benzene reacting with rhodium chloride under acidic conditions.PNG for another purpose many years ago and uploaded to WP in 2010. I wouldn't object if you (or anyone else) redrew it without using Times New Roman. In fact, the scheme could also be usefully extended to show reaction with Zn and CO to yield Cp*Rh(CO)2.

On the subject of collaboration, I didn't mean any formal joint work, just that Misplaced Pages grows as editors recognise the benefit of listening to input, etc. I consider you stopping by to make some comments, and my considering them, and either of us making changes as a formation of collaboration in action.  :) Cheers, EdChem (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

phenalene

Hallo. This edit you say that its not phenalene. I have no real opinion - but I'm not sure you are right after a Google search? :-), but if you are - then you should take a look at phenalene too. I choice phenalene because the first line says "related to phenalene". (But the new image is better) Christian75 (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Christian75: As our article says, phenalene (C
₁₃H
₁₀) is a polcyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, containing only carbon and hydrogen. Phosphaphenalene is based on a phenalene system but including a phosphorus atom in its structure, and its molecular formula is C
₁₂H
₉P. 1-Phosphaphenalene is shown in File:1-phosphaphenalene.svg, whereas File:Phosphaphenalene.png that was in the article previously, is 9b-phosphaphenalene, and these are not the only possible isomers of phosphaphenalene. I am not sure these systems in isolation are all known, but there certainly are derivatives. Both these isomers are "related to phenalene," but neither actually is phenalene. Does this make sense? OrganoMetallurgy, as the editor who changed the image, do you have anything you'd like to add or correct in what I've said? Also, why not display both images? EdChem (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

PS: I have added to the images, see what you think.  :) EdChem (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I had removed the image of 9b-phosphaphenalene because of the lack of notability of that isomer. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/9b-Phosphaphenalene.OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

But if you want to have an image for each isomer, I think that would be fine. I just don't want to leave the impression that the 9b-phosphaphenalene isomer is as important as the 1-phosphaphenalene isomer.OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@OrganoMetallurgy: I am certainly not suggesting that the article on the 9b-isomer being recreated and changed from a redirect. However, on an article on phosphaphenalenes in general, illustrating both of these isomers seems reasonable to me. In the event that the article is developed from a stub, I would expect the content to focus on the 1- isomer because (as I understand it) it is the focus of the reliable sources and the 9b- is only then theoretical. But then, in my (admittedly brief) looking, I've seen more on derivatives of the 1- isomer than on that compound itself. In any case, I have no plans to do the expansion. As Christian75 noted, I changed the label on the 9b-isomer from phenalene (more properly, 1H-phenalene, as DMacks has noted) because that image was not of a phenalene isomer. Shortly after, you changed the image to the new 1-phosphaphenalene illustration. For readers, I think showing the parent PAH and the C
₁₂H
₉P isomers we have available seems helpful / appropriate. I hope that makes sense.  :) Cheers, EdChem (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

PS: I note that having a CAS number might not mean much, but 25043-12-3 refers to the 9b-isomer. This also has articles on other language wikis: sh:9b-Fosfafenalen and sr:9b-Fosfafenalen. EdChem (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

There are four easy isomers to conjure (but only two of them are easy to draw). If only one isomer is really worth writing about, then WP:LEDE says that should be the focus of the main image at the top of the article. But if we're writing about a class, then having multiple members of the class is reasonable. And if the class is mainly known as a niche/special-case derivative of something else that is more known, then I don't object to also having an image of it for comparison, though if the article were more than a stub I would send that to a later section since that other thing is not the actual topic of this article. DMacks (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I've been contemplating what other isomers are possible. I added what I did in line with the current stub-form article, and agree with DMacks that a different arrangement would suit a longer article. If the 1- isomer is the only one worth writing about, I'd name the article for it rather than the class, have a section on its isomers, and add suitable redirects. As for whether the name of the P-centred isomer is 9b- or 9b-, though my experience is that letters like that in names are italicised, I don't care about it enough to fight... and I recognise I may not be correct, anyway. Cheers, EdChem (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

There are four isomers of phenalene itself (see that article's talk-page, whose ref uses roman-type for the "9b" locant). Each has several structurally non-equivalent locations where the P could be placed (for example, 1H-phenalene has no symmetry in its carbon framework, each of the 13 sites is unique!). DMacks (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I read the thread - And have nothing to add. (I was pinged twice...) Christian75 (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Multiball ping-pong could be quite the spectator sport! DMacks (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

This calls for alcoholism!!

Thanks, Chris troutman, and it will become a call for drinking straight methanol (which I am sure Doc James will confirm is best taken !internally) if Doc James is !returned to his seat on the WMF Board. !Election is sadly appropriate for the situation, especially for a body that has demonstrated great !wisdom in acting for the !(best interests) of the community... just so long as they !SuperProtect their own. I think I'll get some port and celebrate Lewis Hamilton's pole position at the inaugural Azerbaijan Grand Prix, which due to the FIA (who are sadly WMF-like, at times), is the !first time there has been an F1 race in Baku. EdChem (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Disclosing own detail

People are allowed to disclose their own personal details are they not? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Doc James, they are. I made the edit so I could provide a link in the post I just made to the IPs talk page (you should be pinged in it). If the Professor decides to create an account and protect his privacy, there are grounds to removing the personal details. If he creates an account under his own name, or says he wants to remain an IP, then my redaction can easily be reversed. In fact, you can reverse it now if you wish – your user page and all – but if he does want privacy, it means a larger revdel / oversight later on. I favour waiting and seeing his response, but I won't edit war if you choose to do otherwise. Cheers, EdChem (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay sounds reasonable :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 July newsletter

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Misplaced Pages. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

ANI

Take a close, long look at my talk page, not just a brief skim, and please strike out your statement that I have caused disruption at ANI. Then take a close look at the group bringing the case against Colonial Overlord. One goes off to warn an activist group, another is a Democratic Party activist, at least one other is a fringe ideologue, none of them are attempting dialogue, they all have a party line to force into the encyclopedia and they are trolling by claiming that any resistance is deadhorse, nothere, etc when that is not the case. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

71.198.247.231, you did cause disruption at ANI by removing a section with an inaccurate edit summary. I took no view on the content of the ANI discussion, though I note your descriptions here do sound like casting aspersions. I decline to strike my comment at ANI which noted my action restoring the section, described your talk page, and expressed my view that admin action against you could be warranted.

I have not looked in detail at the posts by Colonial Overlord, or of those who disagree, or at the dispute at trans woman being discussed at ANI. My point was not that either side is right or wrong or that some compromise is appropriate; it was simply that your removing an ANI section with a "rv troll" edit summary was inappropriate and unacceptable. You were fortunate, IMO, that no admin took action at ANI and the warning from Funcrunch (a level 2 vandalism warning) was mild.

Your talk page does contain a warning from Bishonen, a block from Bbb23, several declined unblock requests, and a warning from Funcrunch. Bishonen has suggested that you have a regular account but are posting anonymously as an IP to avoid your comments being associated with that account, which is not permitted under the policy on sock puppetry. Your first posts were to ANI and I agree with her that your posts show familiarity with Misplaced Pages and its procedures. I don't know for sure if you have an account, but I have strong suspicions. If my suspicions are correct and your main account is identified, action could be taken against it rather than just temporarily blocking this IP address from editing.

I note your most recent ANI edit that implies the scientific and medical consensus that trans women are women is about public relations or is (as you put it above) a "party line." Such a claim is not only inaccurate but also offensive to transgendered individuals, as are comments like these from Colonial Overlord. MOS:IDENTITY and MOS:GENDERID respect gender self-identification because gender identity is now understood in ways that it was not in the past. You are entitled to hold a different view, but you are not entitled to force that view into article space against reliable sources or to use talk pages as a forum.

I strongly advise you to reflect on your actions and moderate your approach otherwise I expect you will earn further blocks. EdChem (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Offensive? Seriously? You are claiming that an argument that wikipedia should not be taking a side on this philosophical and ideological issue is offensive? Not just that you disagree with the argument, but that merely making the argument is offensive? Colonial Overlord (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Colonial Overlord, I'm stating that declaring that trans women are not women is offensive, both to trans women and to anyone who understands the prejudice and discrimination they face. You can say that there are plenty of people who don't accept that trans women are women, which is sadly true. This is not a philosophical or ideological issue, it is an issue of science and medicine. Gender is a matter of identification not a matter of biological sex or genetics. You might not like that that is the consensus that the experts in the field have reached, but that does not give you or anyone else the right to violate the BLP policy by deadnaming or by denying any transgendered person their gender identity. This applies both to article subjects and to editors here on WP. The situation is akin to saying a bisexual person is actually gay or lesbian but hiding or in denial, or that a lesbian or gay person is mentally unwell because of their sexual orientation. Whether someone making such an argument realises that it is offensive to people in the categories being described, it is. Please, try and imagine that you were transgendered and had lived much of your life in a body that does not match your identity, and reflect on how your words would sound. I know it is difficult for me as a cisgendered man to imagine what that experience would be like, but I have tried to understand and I accept what those who are transgendered say about the experience.

FYI, on the issue at trans woman, including the disagreements over transgenderism as part of the article is appropriate and in fact necessary to be consistent with WP:NPOV. However, it does not belong in the lede sentence or in the lede when it is so short. If it were up to me, I would alter the lede sentence to make the issue of gender v. sex clearer. Your making the argument that the controversy should be covered is fine. Arguing for it to be in the lede was fine, initially, but it is now clear that consensus is strongly against you and so you should accept that in relation to the lede (and particularly, the lede sentence). If the coverage in the rest of the article is inadequate (I haven't checked), then argue for expanding that using reliable sources in a neutral way. If I think it is inadequate or you present relevant material not covered, I'll be happy to support its inclusion to make for a more complete article.

I hope that your intent was to improve the article and not to push your beliefs. The diff I linked comes across as the latter, and I do find the argument "trans woman are not women / real women" offensive, but I'll accept your word if that was not your intent. EdChem (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)