User talk:Utopes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Your submission at Articles for creation: Unbibium (September 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Frayae was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Unbibium and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Unbibium, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Extended periodic table into Draft:Unbibium. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thank you for this Diannaa. I did copy text from the extended periodic table article, and I believe I mentioned it on the talk page for Unbibium that I did so. What would be the best course of action to fix this? Should I paraphrase? Should I not use the information? I would love to know the best way to fix the copying to make it meet wikipedia's standards.UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi UtopianPoyzin and thank you for the question. Posting on the talk page is optional; mentioning it in an edit summary is mandatory. I have already added the required attribution: Diff of Draft:Unbibium. No further action is needed on your part. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Diannaa: In that case, thank you for doing so! What changes did you make so that I know what I will need to do in the future to avoid making the same mistake twice? UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

What you have to do when copying within Wikipedia is mention in your edit summary that the material is copied, and provide a wikilink to the source article. If you forget to do it when you add the content, do it in a subsequent edit summary. Please see WP:Copying within Wikipedia for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks then!

UtopianPoyzin, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi UtopianPoyzin! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

I saw that you have been changing the classifications of several of the mineral articles without having made substantial improvements to the articles. More of the normal practice here to work at improving articles, and then hope someone else looks at the article and decides to upgrade. My own practice has been to improve on C-class articles and then do a Good Article Nomination without bothering with an intermediate upgrade to B-class. I also saw that you intend to improve Chromium, and then submit it to FA review. Laudable and ambitious - good luck with that. David notMD (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD: Yes, you are correct in saying that I changed the classifications of articles. However, the only classification that I changed was that of Aluminium, which I promoted from C-Class to B-Class, which I did out of respect for R8R, who had been working diligently on the history of aluminium, while the base article was still well written yet only a C-Class. For the others that I believe you are referring to, I left a template in the talk page of the articles still at C-Class providing my personal grading of the B-Class criteria for the C-Class articles. You are still right; I should at least substantially improve the article before leaving my B-Class recommendation, which is what I am in the process of doing at Chromium, but instead of C to B, which isn't a large jump, I have been editing every section to make the article sound more professional to help it hopefully reach FA. I was not CHANGING the classifications that you were referring to, just merely the grading template. I only upgraded aluminium. If I am mistaken, please let me know, which is why I pinged you. I may have done something that I said I did not, which if that is the case, I apologize. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for misunderstanding your classification changes. I was misled by your Edit summaries, compounded by not looking at the actual classifications in the Talks. David notMD (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD: Yeah... my edit summaries are not all that great. Sorry about that... UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Chromium production

An editor removed List of countries by chromium production from See also because redlinks are not allowed in Featured Articles. I'm OK with that, as the topic is covered in the Production section. There, however, there is a 2002-dated world map showing which countries produce what percentage of world production of chromium. If you can find more recent information, perhaps can update references 40 and 41 and associated text, and also get rid of the figure and ref 42 (the image is colorful, but really adds nothing to the article). The figure above it is good to have, but currently is not referenced. David notMD (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD:, I kept it there to match the fellow featured articles of Titanium and Zinc, who both have such pages in existence. At some point, I would love to have that article exist as a reference.

I see it in the Zinc article but not Titanium. Regardless, I find the figure counterintuitive, as one could think that larger countries are producing more, when what really matters is color. My opinion is that a table, descending order by percent of world production, would be more understandable, and also easier to update as new information becomes available. David notMD (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Most of the FA and GA mineral articles do not have a figure of this nature. Some have a table showing country-by-country production, but some do not have even that. Again, a 2002-based world map is already outdated. David notMD (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD: That is fair, the "list of countries by chromium production" isn't completely needed, and if it is, it'd probably be very low priority. A majority of element GAs and FAs do not actually have said article in existence, and in the whole scheme of things, it is slightly counter intuitive like you said. My mindset was making the chromium article similar in structure to its closest FA elements on either side, in this case being zinc and titanium. (I will say, tou prompted me to go back and double check the titanium article, and I can still see the "list of countries" link in the "see also". Not this matters that much, since we decided against the corresponding article's inclusion. I'll just copy that area over here to save you the trouble.) UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

See also

• List of countries by titanium production
• Titanium in Africa
• Titanium alloy
• Titanium coating
• Titanium Man
• Titanium Metals Corporation
• Titanium ring
• Titanium sublimation pump
• VSMPO-AVISMA
• Titanium in zircon geothermometry

FA Pre-reviewer

In the Ready or not? comment at Chromium Talk, R&R is offering to provide a pre-review. I think it is a great idea, but leave the decision to you. David notMD (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Reference content spacing

The spaces or lack of spaces when creating reference content (PMID=12345678 versus PMID = 12345678 versus PMID= 12345678) have no impact on how the reference looks. Likewise, having a space before and/or after the | separating pieces of the reference is optional. I tend to do it like this: |date=2015 |PMID=12345678 | and so on. David notMD (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I was primarily searching for first names and correcting date formats. I personally style the citations such as |date = 2018-10-18|variable = x|, and I was formatting them as such when I was searching. The citations don't necessarily need to look like that; I was just reviewing the citations in the area. I will say; I probably didn't need to change as many spacings as I did. I should have had a "well, while I'm at it, I'll do this task" mentality, but instead I had a "while I'm at it, I'll do do this task and too much more." I space citations that way if I work on them, but I was spacing some I didn't touch. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer review or FA review?

You may want to query R&R at its Talk to clarify whether offering to do a peer review or do the FA review after it is submitted. Was not clear to me from what was written in Chromium Talk. David notMD (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD: I imagined that R8R would be providing a peer review so that we would know the direction to focus on in the article; once he reviewed it, we would fix his reviews before submitting to FAC. Now that I worded it this way, I'm pretty much describing a FAR. Do you think the article is ready as it is to become a Featured Article Candidate, or at least be graded on its criteria? UtopianPoyzin (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I have never contributed to a FA. Better to ask Stone. David notMD (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Chromium in plants

Researching question of why chromium is in plants and does it matter which oxidation state. David notMD (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Finding interesting content on two topics: 1) effects of chromium on plants, algae and bacteria; and 2) potential for use in phytoremediation of chromium contamination of soil and water. David notMD (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD: I am assuming that you will be adding the information that you collect into the article? It would be very helpful if you could input this into "Chromium". Still, how much information are you finding on the topic? Depending on the answer, I'll let you decide if it would be appropriate in "Chromium" or a different article. I am personally working with the physical characteristics section to streamline info for the "Atomic" and "Bulk" sections, as recommended by R8R, so I'll leave you to the effects that chromium has on plant and bacteria growth. I would assume, if put into the article, that it would warrant a new section within "Biological role", with the "Dietary recommendations" being promoted to a header. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, intent is to add it to this article. Chromium absorption is passive (akin to other minerals), and there does not appear to be a physiological role. Cr6+ is much more toxic than Cr3+. Phytoremediation is an interesting subset of the topic, as microbiota and plants may be able to convert 6 to 3. David notMD (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Chromium biological role

How about you work on the parts where you have expert knowledge and leave the biological role section alone until peer reviewers identify concerns? David notMD (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD: That's what I plan on doing. All I edited was the heading of one subsection, sorry. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe "Health Claims" was too broad of a title name... UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

In this field, where I have a doctorate in nutritional biochemistry and a 38-year career in R&D and regulatory, "Health claims" is taken as a claimed benefit, but not always with adequate evidence. There is no process of prior approval, so companies claim anything they can think of until the FDA or FTC stops them. The longer subsection title indicates that the content will be about government reviewed claims only. David notMD (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The following three subsections are about conditions for which health claims are made in marketing chromium dietary supplements, but the evidence is inadequate. David notMD (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD: Okay, I can understand where you are coming from. To summarize what I interpret, "health claims" would be an unclarified, non-specific subheader that would refer to all health claims in general, regardless of whether they were reviewed by the government. Alternatively, "approved and disapproved health claims", albeit long, clarifies that the health claims that are being talked about have been federally assessed for accuracy and legitimacy. I apologize if you felt as if I challenged your knowledge of the subject, I was simply trying to condense the header. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Since 2004 I have been a science consultant to supplement industry (declared as COI on my User page, and when appropriate, on article Talk pages). The majority of what supplement companies claim as health benefits rest on weak/incomplete science. My job is to tell them to tone down the claims or get better science. Sometimes they listen. Worst example: a company hired me, paid me, ignored my advice. About two years later the Federal Trade Commission fined them $21,000,000. David notMD (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

On the plant stuff, looks like the content may naturally split between Biological role and Environmental issues. Hexavalent chromium is toxic to plants, and in polluted areas can accumulate in plants to point that amounts are potentially unhealthy for animals (and humans) that consume those plants. The mineral does not appear to have any function in plants. However, there is also research into bacteria, algae, plants that can take up Cr6+ from ground water and soil, and convert it to Cr3+, or accumulate so that the biomass can be collected and moved to safe landfill. David notMD (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

FA stalled?

Progress on the article appears to have stalled. I still intend to add content about chromium in plants, bacteria.... but higher priority demands on my time are my day job, and intent to continue to improve Folate to ready it for a Good Article nomination. Aside from Chromium, I hope you are finding other articles that need improvements. The shortfalls of Stubs and Starts and even C-class articles are usually easier to identify and tackle. David notMD (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD: The progress is indeed temporarily stalled. My biggest priority as of now are the personal projects that I have going on at school that require immediate attention, and I have slid Chromium / Wikipedia in general to my second slot. My main goal is to evaluate the possibilities for improvement by R8R that he left on the peer review, and I am looking for a valid time to sit down and cover each. It requires that all of the physical characteristics be rewritten, and that probably won't be the quickest thing to do. I wish I could do more at the moment, the best day to work will probably be Tuesday, but I might be able to configure Sunday. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Added fish section to Chromium, Biological role...

...and working on plants and single-cell organisms section. David notMD (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Reminder

to maybe propose an AfD for NUR Reactor, created by User:Andrewa, which may be hard to get by... UtopianPoyzin (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, UtopianPoyzin... maybe discuss at Talk:NUR Reactor#Suggestion of AfD? Looks like a reasonable stub to me. Andrewa (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to tag you the first time (I did the second. Does linking somebody's user page really call them over?) I was considering the thought of holding an AfD on the NUR Reactor article, so I left a reminder on my talk page to go back to run through the AfD criteria to see if it truly holds up to standard. The reason that I didn't put one out on the talk page there is because I hadn't really looked into the article in depth.

At first glance, I felt that the article failed to reach the notability criteria to be an article at WP:SIGCOV, but I hadn't done much research on the topic to see if there was anything that could be supplemented. As of now, all that exists in terms of sources is the NUR Reactor website. That is where I assumed a biased point of view would originate, but as I stated, I hadn't looked into it.

Then again, I am aware that you do write very well kept articles, and that you have a very good reputation in this department as an administrator, which is why I was hesitant to make any further action on the matter, leaving it as a note on my talk page rather than a discussion on the article's talk page. However, I didn't want to dismiss the article completely, and assumed that it may just be a smudge that needs cleaning. While the topic may be reasonable to be kept as a stub, I don't believe the article is notable based on the two sentences and website cited at the article itself. I was thinking that one more independent source to help provide verifiability may be what is needed, but that is just my take on the matter. Thank you for listening (and sorry for calling you over)! UtopianPoyzin (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

After post: notice how I set "may be hard to get by". I do understand that you do make great articles, but WP:SIGCOV was my greatest issue with this article. Also, the 3:2 ratio of blue links to red links kind of rubbed me the wrong way after a first glance, given that the first two working wikilinks are rather general in nature. But no matter, it is a discussion worth having, so I'll move it over to the talk page. Keep in mind that I have no intention on pushing this farther if you have more research in the field than I. WP:BOLD may apply, but this isn't my "argument" to win, if it can be called that. I am open to your opinion, even one more link will be enough to satisfy. Thank you again! UtopianPoyzin (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Rights granted

Hello UtopianPoyzin. Your account has been granted the "rollbacker" and "pending changes reviewer" user rights. These user rights allow you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and quickly revert the edits of other users.

Rollback user right

Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin).

Pending changes reviewer user right

The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes.
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove it, alternatively you can leave a request on the administrators' noticeboard. Happy editing! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Explanation on NiSe revert

Hi thank you for your many edits to Wikipedia. I reverted your well intentioned renaming of nickel selenide to nickel(II) selenide. The S, Se, and Te derivatives of many metals are nonstoichiometric, so oxidation states dont apply. The situation is different for the halides or nitrates of these elements. I'd be glad to provide more info if you want it. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: Au2S3, if it existed, also would not be described with formal oxidation states. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

• News and notes: Wikimedia grants less accessible for travel, equipment, meetups, and India

• In the media: Politics starts getting rough

• Discussion report: New proposals in aftermath of Fram ban

• Arbitration report: A month of reintegration

• Gallery: Classic panoramas from Heinrich Berann

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Community view: Video based summaries of Wikipedia articles. How and why?

• News from the WMF: Designing ethically with AI: How Wikimedia can harness machine learning in a responsible and human-centered way

• Recent research: Most influential medical journals; detecting pages to protect

• Special report: Administrator cadre continues to contract

• Traffic report: World cups, presidential candidates, and stranger things

• In focus: The French Wikipedia is overtaking the German

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Administrator changes

Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee

Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos

Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes

RickinBaltimore

Oversight changes

Beeblebrox

RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

• Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

Miscellaneous

• Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
• The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

  Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

• News and notes: Documenting Wikimania and our beginnings

• In focus: Ryan Merkley joins WMF as Chief of Staff

• In the media: Many layers of fake news: Fake fiction and fake news vandalism

• Discussion report: Meta proposals on partial bans and IP users

• Traffic report: Once upon a time in Greenland with Boris and cornflakes

• Op-Ed: We couldn't have told you this, but Wikipedia was censored

• Opinion: The Curious Case of Croatian Wikipedia

• Community view: Chinese Wikipedia and the battle against extradition from Hong Kong

• News from the WMF: Meet Emna Mizouni, the newly minted 2019 Wikimedian of the Year

• Recent research: Special issue on gender gap and gender bias research

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

CSD G1

Hi Utopes, I stumbled upon one your AfC reviews while patrolling new pages, and just wanted to give you a friendly reminder that G1 only applies to true nonsense. G1 is not appropriate if you can reasonably derive any meaning, even if it is written very poorly, a hoax, or otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia; this criterion only applies when there is a completely unintelligible string of characters and/or word salad. I see that you self-reverted your tagging already, but this is just something important to keep in mind. Cheers, ComplexRational (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Yep, @ComplexRational:, thanks for the feedback! I ended up withdrawing the CSD claim, as you said; here was my mindset when I first posted the CSD. I could not derive any meaning from "He directed who is the first wife of my father filmography." upon my first glance, and then "Saare jahan se acha" seemed like gibberish to me. I did not consider that a different language was being spoken here, and while I recognized English words at first, I couldn't understand what the article was trying to say. So, because I wanted to give the author a chance to clean up what was written and I was definitely biting the newcomers here, I removed the template as I started to understand that this was supposed to be a director and that the Indian titles were the movies. (However, the article is an autobiography and not notable, so I firmly stand by my decision). But thanks for getting back to me about this, I will try harder to derive meaning from these types of articles. What CSD criteria would you have cited in that case? Utopes (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome! For starters, I agree that this is certainly not suitable for mainspace; I would not have accepted it either. I don't think any CSD applies to this draft in this case, actually, so I would let it be. G13 would apply in six months if no further edits are made, though. When I can't understand text in these cases, I always use Google Translate first, and only apply G1 if it still is gibberish.

Iff this were already in mainspace, though, A7 would apply, as being a film director is not credible claim of significance and the linked sources do not suggest that such a claim can be made (if it is, then AfD is the way to go). But of course A7 only applies to articles, not drafts! ComplexRational (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)