Double sharp (talk | contribs) →How to file a noticeboard complaint: thank you - we may not do it right now, because I've been discussing with the previous mediating party ^_^ |
CaptainEek (talk | contribs) →Arbitration notice: new section |
||
Line 95:
[[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 04:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
== Arbitration notice ==
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#An elementary issue]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration guide|guide to arbitration]] and the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Arbitration proceedings|Arbitration Committee's procedures]] may be of use.
Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> [[User:CaptainEek|<span style="color:#6a1f7f">'''CaptainEek'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<span style="font-size:82%"><span style="color:#a479e5">''Edits Ho Cap'n!''</span></span>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 21:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
|
Revision as of 21:36, 12 November 2020
Lurking a bit. Mostly inactive though.
TFA
Thank you today for Hassium, saying "We return once again to bring you another superheavy element, after dubnium and nihonium back in 2018, and tennessine (then ununseptium) back in 2015. After the first FAC, we did some more work on the article (chronicled on the talk page), and I think we're ready to try again now. Hopefully this is a pleasant enough read for the subject matter while we sit back and wait for element 119 to reveal itself!"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 08:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Some apples left for you, with thanks for all the double sharp music. See my talk today for an expressive image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Oh! Thank you so much for this! Now I feel bad that I haven't done anywhere near as much for music as I have for chemistry on WP...but I still love seeing your DYKs on the main page anyway! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please don't feel bad ;) - this round of apples went to people recognizing the merits of Jerome Kohl, DYK? So music felt closer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: And now I feel bad for not thinking of that immediately. ^_^ Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please don't feel bad ;) - this round of apples went to people recognizing the merits of Jerome Kohl, DYK? So music felt closer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | |
Seven years! |
---|
- now feel good --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Thanks! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- welcome ;) - birthday of two friends who play string instruments (bass and cello), pictured on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Thanks! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- now feel good --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
DA’s article on Lu etc
Where was this article published? Sandbh (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: In the Belarusian journal Хiмiя: праблемы выкладання 1999, 5, pp. 102–109. Double sharp (talk) 09:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- P.S. It's also on his website: spreads one, two, three, four. (But only as pictures and in Russian. So I haven't read it properly yet as using Google Translate to read it is a bit difficult, but do intend to try doing it soon.) Double sharp (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Oops
Hey, I inadvertently messed up some of your edits and have now tried to repair things. But please double check as I may not have done it correctly. Might have even made it worse. Sigh. YBG (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think I've finally fixed it. This diff shows the changes between your last edit and my final fix, which include five changes by me and three by DePiep. This diff shows the changes between your edit just before my screw-up and the current revision. Thank you for your understanding. YBG (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Turns out my initial efforts at a fix were totally misguided. My edit, through the magic of WP had already included your latest changes, I was only making things worse. But now all is copacetic. Hopefully. YBG (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @YBG: All good, no problem! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2020 November newsletter
The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by
Gog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points.
The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with
Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.
The other finalists were Hog Farm (submissions),
HaEr48 (submissions),
Harrias (submissions) and
Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!
All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.
Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
Bloom6132 (submissions) win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
Rhododendrites (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.
Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Coloring our primary PT
Hi. Since I can not locate the single location at WT:ELEM for this topic, I write here (as if on WT:ELEM) ;-) :-)
I learned that you advocate to make our primary PT (we know) to have the blocks colored. Now I can understand your argumentation for this, and maybe somewhere else I might join this discussion blocks-over-categories.
- My point for now is: coloring the block has problems too. In short:
- 1. Like columns and rows, blocks are already present and visible in a PT, in its table structure. (Even in a b-and-w one)
- 2. Coloring blocks (or any set) distracks attention away from the main periodic features: groups/columns, periods/rows, and blocks ;-)
So I say: why cannot our primary PT be in b/w? And thereby explain everything the article wants to describe, primarily, just as well? All themes (blocks, cat's, m.p.'s, whatever) can have their dedicated place. Must say: for blocks in b/w, I'd want to make their borders thicker. So, more px for the borders between p-d elemnts etc.
Worth digesting? -DePiep (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: Busy today, but indeed worth digesting. I agree that blocks are already present and visible as you say in #1 – but only to some extent. Helium being in the s block means it's not quite obvious, and there doesn't seem a quite obvious way to present the block names. (And if Sc-Y-La persists on WP, then the split d block will not be quite totally obvious either.) So, while I agree with your #2 that those three are the only main periodic features, I sort of feel that blocks being one of them implies they should be called out. They are a main PT feature that everyone agrees on (that's something categories cannot claim at all) and there is some case for giving them attention and labelling them explicitly. Colouring is just a natural way to do it that many sources use when describing blocks, that's why I suggest it (and for Russian tables it is often the default categorisation.) But you have a point there and my preferences are indeed blocks-only > black-and-white >> any other colour scheme. Thank you for mentioning this as an option. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- We have time. I was just planting a thought suggestion. -DePiep (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: And you did, and it was an interesting one to boot. Thank you! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- We have time. I was just planting a thought suggestion. -DePiep (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
How to file a noticeboard complaint
The 3-tier diff and link series |
---|
Here are some templates you may find useful:
- Jehochman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Gamma ray burst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am complaining because @Jehochman: has been causing trouble at Gamma ray burst in violation of WP:V, WP:VANDAL and WP:FRINGE. [1][2][3]
See how I can cover a lot of ground in a very small space? Before you even talk about your complaint, list the involved editors with all their links and also the involved articles. Then make a list of asertions with a few of the best diffs for each. That's the best way to get help. Make it easy so the reader can just click on the evidence and see exactly what you are talking about. Jehochman Talk 20:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Jehochman: I see, thank you for the explanation. So I should not explain how I feel the policies are violated, but leave it for the reader to deduce from the diffs? Double sharp (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- If you diff includes a lot of content and you want to point to a specific, you can use
{{tquote}}
like thisDon't raise the stakes.
[4]. If readers don't understand, they'll ask. Try to choose examples that are self-evident. If your problem is subtle, such as somebody pushing pseudoscience and longer explanations are needed, you may have to take it to arbitration. Jehochman Talk 20:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- If you diff includes a lot of content and you want to point to a specific, you can use
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Buddhist_hell.jpg/220px-Buddhist_hell.jpg)
- @Jehochman: I see, thank you. I am afraid that at least part of the problem may be subtle (although not in the way you gave as an example) and need longer explanations, then. Do you have some similar advice on how to write when taking something to arbitration, as in that case the problem would be more difficult to describe succintly? I do think I would want to do that in this case. Double sharp (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just file a noticeboard thread as best you can, or drop it, as you like. If you file a noticeboard thread, somebody will get peaved and summon all of you to arbitration. Jehochman Talk 21:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Jehochman: OK, thank you for your help. I will try to read up on the expected behaviour when filing an arbitration request and discuss and decide with other involved parties whether or not to do it. Double sharp (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just a note, Double sharp, that arbitration cases have strict word limits unless you request and are granted an extension. If you are limited to 1,000 words and you write 3,500, the arbitration clerks will just lop off the extra 2,500 words. It's better to be succinct and make use of all of the diffs you are allowed. Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Liz: Thanks for telling me this. For now I've been discussing with User:EdChem on his talk page what to do next, since he has been trying to mediate the situation, and he suggested it may be better not to take it to ArbCom at this moment and that if he has time, he may try to start a process to see if WT:ELEM (the disputing project) can move forward productively. So, there is some chance this can be resolved. I will definitely keep your advice in mind and follow it if at some point we feel it's the best option to go there. Double sharp (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just a note, Double sharp, that arbitration cases have strict word limits unless you request and are granted an extension. If you are limited to 1,000 words and you write 3,500, the arbitration clerks will just lop off the extra 2,500 words. It's better to be succinct and make use of all of the diffs you are allowed. Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Jehochman: OK, thank you for your help. I will try to read up on the expected behaviour when filing an arbitration request and discuss and decide with other involved parties whether or not to do it. Double sharp (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just file a noticeboard thread as best you can, or drop it, as you like. If you file a noticeboard thread, somebody will get peaved and summon all of you to arbitration. Jehochman Talk 21:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Jehochman: I see, thank you. I am afraid that at least part of the problem may be subtle (although not in the way you gave as an example) and need longer explanations, then. Do you have some similar advice on how to write when taking something to arbitration, as in that case the problem would be more difficult to describe succintly? I do think I would want to do that in this case. Double sharp (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Arbitration notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#An elementary issue and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)