Since you asked at WT:ELEM:

Double negatives are OK in English, and resolve to a positive, but they do not quite have the same meaning as an unadorned positive. So, I think the general consensus for writing is that you should avoid using them unless you're using them to make a point, in my experience. The reason is that "I don't disagree", while logically equivalent to "I agree", has a rather distinct connotation. The first one makes it sound like you'd like to moderate the lack of disagreement with something, such as "I don't disagree, but I think your presentation of the point needs work", but that out of politeness you're not going to say exactly what that "something" is. Similarly, "he's not incompetent" has rather a different connotation from "he's competent". The idea is that it makes the listener say "well, why did he go out of his way to say it that way, rather than direct praise?" It can be thought of as a form of litotes: two negatives cancel to form a positive, but the positive is weakened by the indirect route you used to get there. (Well, that and the fact that having lots of negatives is a good way to make your sentence really confusing. And sometimes funny; I am not sure if you know the joke that runs "This paper fills a much-needed gap in the literature". XD)

You may be interested in the history of the double-negative construction in English. Before the 18th century (so, the language of Shakespeare and Chaucer), double negatives resolved to a negative; but as English's star rose further beyond Latin as the educated language (remember, even though there was great English literature before then, Newton still wrote the Principia in Latin ^_^), prescriptive grammarians started frowning upon it because it was considered illogical (and also because it didn't follow Latin). This change went into Standard English, though in non-standard dialects you will often still hear double negatives resolving to negatives. (That usage now, however, strikes most speakers as uneducated.)

So, I guess I have to ask how double negatives work in Russian. I trust Double_negative#Slavic_languages is right, since it's cited, and double negatives also cancel each other in Russian. But is the connotation different in any way?

BTW, something I've been curious about that is vaguely related (the intersection of logic and language): how does Russian handle yes-no questions? The point I'm curious about is best illustrated by the examples here: in English, if you're asked "Don't you have a class?" (note the negative question), the answer "yes" would mean "yes, I have a class", and the answer "no" would mean "no, I don't have a class". It is just the opposite in Chinese, where I will quote that article for elucidation:

Needless to say, since I have these two as two native languages, this particular headlong collision in usage resulted in much confusion when I was a kid until I figured out that the languages were using slightly different logic: in Chinese you answer to the question, in English you answer to the verb. Well, no wonder child-DS kept getting misunderstood when answering such questions, because he was answering in English following the logic of Chinese! ^_^ Well, in French you have si to contradict a negative question, and in German you have doch, so that's a three-way system. And in the 14th (Chaucer) through 16th (when Tyndale got it wrong, and More scolded him for it) centuries. there was even a four-way system(!):

Will they not go? — Yes, they will.

Will they not go? — No, they will not.

Will they go? — Yea, they will.

Will they go? — Nay, they will not.

Actually, let me quote More from that article. I think it should not be too hard to read! ^_^

I would not here note by the way that Tyndale here translateth no for nay, for it is but a trifle and mistaking of the Englishe worde : saving that ye shoulde see that he whych in two so plain Englishe wordes, and so common as in naye and no can not tell when he should take the one and when the tother, is not for translating into Englishe a man very mete. For the use of these two wordes in aunswering a question is this. No aunswereth the question framed by the affirmative. As for ensample if a manne should aske Tindall himselfe: ys an heretike meete to translate Holy Scripture into Englishe ? Lo to thys question if he will aunswere trew Englishe, he must aunswere nay and not no. But and if the question be asked hym thus lo: is not an heretike mete to translate Holy Scripture into Englishe ? To this question if he will aunswere trewe Englishe, he must aunswere no and not nay. And a lyke difference is there betwene these two adverbs ye and yes. For if the question bee framed unto Tindall by the affirmative in thys fashion. If an heretique falsely translate the New Testament into Englishe, to make his false heresyes seem the word of Godde, be his bokes worthy to be burned ? To this questyon asked in thys wyse, yf he will aunswere true Englishe, he must aunswere ye and not yes. But now if the question be asked him thus lo; by the negative. If an heretike falsely translate the Newe Testament into Englishe to make his false heresyee seme the word of God, be not hys bokes well worthy to be burned ? To thys question in thys fashion framed if he will aunswere trewe Englishe he may not aunswere ye but he must answere yes, and say yes marry be they, bothe the translation and the translatour, and al that wyll hold wyth them.

— Thomas More, The Confutation of Tyndale's Answer, pp. 430^[1][2]

This is still present in Shakespeare, but by then not being used consistently, a symptom of the system simplifying down to the two-way distinction we now have.

So, I'm rather curious how Russian would handle something like this, and you seem a good person to ask. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this message. I generally knew how this more or less; what really had me wondering was that when, if at all, this was considered good style. Your response, including the linked pdf, gives a good answer to this question. Thanks again. The reading was also genuinely interesting.

Double negatives in Russian effectively cancel each other, yes. Note, however, some difference between Russian in English when the negation is also reflected in the subject or the adverb. The phrase "I never liked tea" would be "Я никогда не любил чай" (=I never not liked tea). A particular stumble for a Russian learning English is the word unless, because its equivalent in Russian (если только не = if only not) has a grammatical negation that is absent from the English word.

The Russian negative questions are not straightforward :) I think it effectively depends on what you really mean by asking. Think of the question "Вы не хотите чаю?" (=You not want tea?). It can imply an expected positive answer, as in "I want to offer you a cup, please say you do so I take it you accept the offer," or a negative one, as in "We're really short on tea, and I don't want to go to the store, and my paycheck only comes next Friday anyway, so I'm just being polite, please don't take advantage of that." (Consider possible English translations: "Don't you want (some/a cup of) tea?" vs "You don't want tea (do you)?") My guess would be that in the former case "yes" would mean "I do" and no means "I don't," whereas in the latter case it would be the opposite. However, if somebody answers such a question with a mere "yes" (or a mere "no"), it may be a good idea to ask what that answer actually means, just to make sure.

For this reason, I've liked the German three-way system. As for the four-way system of English of the old: I actually know that in the American parliamentary votes, "yes" is "yea" and "no" is "nay." I always wondered why that was. I was willing to describe that as American congressmen being fancy by using rare words. Then I learned that in the British House of Commons, "yes" is "aye," which only strengthened the idea in me that parliamentarians are super keen on that "showing off" by using some ancient words :) now the American words at least make sense; I'll still need to look up that aye, though. (By the way, I remember listening to an explanation of how the British parliament works on YouTube. The most liked comment said something like, "the ayes to the right, the noes to the left... sounds like a Picasso painting" xD)

More is actually understandable, yes :) thanks for sharing.

Also thanks for bringing up Chinese again. My reading queue is slowly getting done with (just this Monday, I finished great a book on Yegor Gaidar that's been standing on my bookshelf for more than a year now; feels like I'll need to revisit it later). I still really want to get to the book you've recommended to me, so thank you for reminding me of that!--R8R (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I remember you said you should have time from the current weekend onward for the Hs FAC.

Now I have a little problem: as of today my RL workload has just become high again. So while I could start it now, I would probably not be able to do more than a few small fixes for about the first month of the FAC. Or, I could start it in approximately a month, but then I would feel really bad about keeping you waiting this long for it when I've already done that over the past few months.

Since in the last phase this really ended up being more your work than mine, I therefore ask on your talk page which option you would prefer. Or you could start it yourself, it's fine with me too. Thank you for all your help with this, I should add! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational: Pinging you too, of course. Double sharp (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Thank you for the ping. I can join in whenever both of you are ready, but I can't promise full engagement and investment until 16 June because of RL matters. So it seems that we should likely start around then or perhaps 1-2 weeks afterward (or whenever you have more spare time, DS). But the final call is still yours, R8R. ComplexRational (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp and ComplexRational: I mentioned a couple of times it's most important that we enjoy our time here, and I stand by that. I don't want to hurry all that much if you feel bad about not being able to fully participate. I suppose I could carry the team, but not at the expense of the others feeling bad about not being there in the first place. It won't hurt to wait another couple of weeks or a month. Double sharp, please start the FAC when you're ready.--R8R (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational and R8R: I have some time now: so if both of you are fine with it, we should be good to start the FAC. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Me too, maybe even a bit much, for the next five weeks or so. I'm ready for the FAC. I think, though, that I'm still more a reviewer than a contributor/nominator? ComplexRational (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: If you’re good to go, then so am I. Last few weeks have been rather hectic; today has been particularly hectic. There’s a number of things that preoccupy me at the moment but I can definitely find enough time for an FAC. I’ll get engaged in it during the weekend, but there’s no reason to wait to start.

@ComplexRational: as far as I am concerned, suit yourself and take whatever role you find yourself most comfortable in.—R8R (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And we launch! Double sharp (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Superheavy element into Introduction to the heaviest elements. 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. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. 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) 12:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: thanks for the ping. I'm generally aware of the rule. However, there is no requirement that I can find that states that it is necessary to provide attribution in an edit summary. I did quite openly say where the text came from: it was not a mere copying from Wikipedia, but also some variation of a Wikipedia text, and it also came from a different article than the one you've established to be the source. And, to be clear, I named the origin article in the hat note of the new page in the very first edit. I understand the general desire to help and to maintain the legal status of Wikipedia article as unquestioned, but everything was fine in this particular case.--R8R (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia is the place where it states that " At minimum, this means providing an edit summary at the destination page – that is, the page into which the material is copied – stating that content was copied, together with a link to the source (copied-from) page". I didn't see such an edit summary, and hence this notice. — Diannaa (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, my point is that the attribution doesn't have to be provided there or there and elsewhere, at least Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia doesn't say so; it just provides one simple low-effort way to do it (the minimum in terms of required effort indeed) but doesn't say this particular way is a requisite. Again, no hard feelings, just saying there are other ways of fulfilling the requirement.--R8R (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi R8R

Would you be able to find a used copy of these two volumes in Russia, and send them to me? I can't find a source for them via e.g. abebooks.com. If this would be doable/agreeable could you please let me know the best way to cover your costs?

thank you, Sandbh (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: do you specifically need these books in print? I've been able to find them in djvu and I could send them to you by email.--R8R (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Email would be excellent thank you R8R. Sandbh (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing really, I'm glad I was able to help.

Check your email, I sent the books to you. Please write back to me if you haven't received them.--R8R (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you R8R. The international loans desk at the National Library of Russia advised that this item was not for loan! First time I've been refused an ILL from an overseas library. No idea what's going on there. They did provide a table of contents. Sandbh (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, no problem at all, you're very welcome. In case you're wondering, I found it via Library Genesis. The resource has been useful to me even during my university education and I've used it a couple of times to aid my Wikipedia work, too.

Unfortunately, I don't know what exactly happened either. Maybe the library has funding problems in the midst of the ongoing economic crisis, for instance. Anyway, I'm glad I could help you so easily.--R8R (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to take up my suggestion of sandboxing the main ((periodic table)) template? My skills simply are not yet up to that but I'd be really grateful if we had something tangible to discuss that was similar in concepts to ((compact periodic table)) as we've been doing on the periodic table talk page. I'll keep an eye on your reply here, so no need to ping me. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; here you go.--R8R (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I wish I could do that just as quickly. A steep learning curve I'm just starting off on. I've now got -DePiep on side and he's already implemented part of what is being discussed on the periodic table talk page. He won't of course alter the ((periodic table)) template until we reach consensus and what he's done so far maintains consistency (see bottom of Neon). Actually, he's against moving La out to the "strip" below, so it will be interesting to see how things turn out. For that reason I won't introduce the specific sandbox case you've just created on my thread quite yet. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. It's not very difficult once you have learned the markup. I've made you another one just in case (asterisks could use some work but it'll do for giving you a basic impression). Undo the last edit if you don't like it.

I pretty much don't have an opinion on this (I've seen this discussion a few times and participated in it, too, and by now I've grown somewhat weary of it), but if you feel like going for it, I don't see why not. This is a place where people seek to apply themselves in a constructive manner in their free time, I'd rather aid that. Please don't feel obligated to expose these little works of mine, they're easy to make anyway, no problem if they end up unexposed.--R8R (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I decided to put a brief comment on the thread just below where I had asked you to act. When I saved this, I noticed you had updated the sandbox to my "version 3", so I'll go back now and fix my typo that said you had produced version 2! As to being "easy" that depends on whether one has the skill, which I certainly don't (yet) :-) Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

R8R

I've not been able to source this via an overseas interlibrary loan request:

• Luchinskii, G.P., Trifonov, D.N.: Some problems of chemical elements classification and the structure of the periodic system. In: Uchenie o periodichnosti. Istoriya i sovremennoct’. Nauka, Moscow pp 200–220 (1981) (in Russian)

Would you be able to please send me a copy? One day I hope to be able return these favours.

thank you, Sandbh (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Unfortunately, I can't find this one in digital form. But if you really need it, I see that the publisher has an old copy of the book for sale. Is it worth the trouble for me to get it?

Don't worry about having to return the favor, I am happy to help you without expecting a favor in return.--R8R (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. Hard copy would be fine. Sandbh (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: in that case, I'll try to visit the Russian State Library on Saturday or if I'm unable to do so, the next Saturday. If I am in luck and they have the book (which they should), then I can photograph the article you need and send the photos to you. If they don't have it, I'll go visit the publisher. Is this plan good or should I head straight to the publisher?--R8R (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@R8R: Could you please go to the publisher. Sandbh (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that, sure. That'll still happen on Saturday. Unfortunately, they won't deliver to where I live and I'm stuck at home during the working days.--R8R (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: I went to the publisher yesterday. They told me the book had to be transported from their warehouse. I'll pick it up next Saturday.--R8R (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@R8R: Thank you! Sandbh (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: I have picked up the book. Now I could scan it and send you the scans, have it shipped to you, or both. If you want it shipped, I'd prefer we discuss this via email, so please write me a letter.--R8R (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I'll pm you. Sandbh (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does the book have some editors? That citation I listed above seems incomplete. Sandbh (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Trifonov is listed as the editor-in-chief.--R8R (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re the comment on CR's talk page:

I can't agree with that characterisation. Chemists have been losing enough sleep about it to give arguments since 1921. And to bring the issue to IUPAC's attention. And for IUPAC to endorse the Lu form in 1988. And for Jensen and Lavelle to have been arguing in articles from 2008 to 2015. And for a IUPAC project to be set up. And for the percentage of La tables in the textbook literature to dwindle from a very strong supermajority in the 1990s to just a plurality in the 2010s.

This seems to tell me that it is, in fact, rather a big deal at the moment. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to think it's indeed a dig deal but it only is in a narrow circle of Jensen, Lavelle, Scerri, and perhaps a few more people. As for the general chemical public, recall that source I posted on CR's talk page. Would you count it as -La-Ac or would you say the authors didn't really care that much?--R8R (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To me it sounds a bit more like an attempt to be neutral by self-contradiction and saying it both ways, really. And to me it still also comes down to:

1. Why contradict ourselves when we don't have to? Self-contradiction is not just bad when trying to teach a topic. It's also just poor writing in general.
2. We are waiting in the first place for what IUPAC says. So, in the meantime, why not use what IUPAC actually endorsed in 1988 and put in the 1990 Red Book? Particularly when that happens to be Lu under Y and solves problem 1?

I mean, yeah, it's not a big deal for most of chemistry, but when explaining chemical periodicity and how it comes from Madelung's rule: it's a big deal. The 1990 Red Book is redundant. The *-** periodic table in the 2005 Red Book is not actually a part of the Red Book recommendations.

Not to mention that the share of textbooks showing La under Y fell from 82% in the 1990s to 48% in the 2010s. Surely that implies that chemists lost some sleep about it. Double sharp (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on what position you find yourself in. You most certainly can use any form on your talk page if you like, for example. As for Wikipedia, there are a few questions:

1. Do we have to follow anything IUPAC says by the mere virtue of them having said so? I'd argue most certainly not. Perhaps you remember my strong opposition to WP:ALUM, another rules inspired by IUPAC (this rule of ours is particularly easy to oppose since it's not even up to date with IUPAC itself, but I would still be opposed to it had it not been the case). That being said, there is great weight of credibility behind an IUPAC recommendation, but to quote the report you linked, "IUPAC can only make recommendations, not laws." If they get it, so should we.
2. What is IUPAC's position anyway? They don't have one, it's been said many times before. The 2005 Red Book supersedes the 1990 Red Book.
3. The IUPAC survey gives only 33 books for the 2010s, that's not very much. And if you look at the list of those books, you'll learn that all 33 are in English. So much for the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. Then again, in our specific case, where we discuss the English Wikipedia, that's fine, but this stat is questionable still. Why track only university books? (these question just popped up in my head, I noticed I didn't have them before and that somewhat casts a shadow onto my earlier support of -La-Ac for en.wiki right now. However, I don't think we have any other data yet? it seems we'll have to do for now with what we've got, even if bearing in mind the limitations of this data)--R8R (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. What happens when IUPAC takes a position? Hard to tell. I presume nobody will really care and the -Lu-Lr version, if that's what they settle on, will start to spread slowly the same way the -*-** has spread since 2005. But what if there's a strong opposition in reliable sources to that?
5. The -*-** has been gaining traction due to the IUPAC table. Yes, it's not a recommendation from them but it seems to work as if it were one anyway. The 2010s haven't made -Lu-Lr any more popular, so it's hard to say there is a case of using it now any more then there were then based on that data. I'd say it's a prime example of how chemists don't lose their sleep over this.

Again, this boils down to what position you find yourself in. Personally, you can make any decision you like. But the more people are influenced by a decision, the stronger the need for critical thinking and for house rules. It seems to me that you're seeing what you want to see. That's fine, all of us do this to some extent. The question really is, how can I (in this case, you) be wrong and what could the situation look like for the other side? Am I consistent in applying my criteria? et cetera. Some of these questions could be dismissed in favor of better teaching practices elsewhere; if you're a teacher, more power to you to design a course how you see fit. However, Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not a textbook.--R8R (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2005 Red Book only has an 18 column table. The 1990 one has 8, 18, and 32 column tables. In the first two they neutrally give Sc-Y-*: still no support for La. In the last one they cannot be neutral. They put Lu under Y. Not to mention that in the Red Books they don't recommend a specific form: it's the 1988 report that does that and is for Lu.

The limitations of the data are exactly why I feel something like WP:ALUM is needed. If you look at that limited sample of textbooks, La gets a plurality. If you do a Google image search, * gets a 2/3 majority. If you count articles discussing the matter, Lu gets a strong majority. Of course all these measures have limitations. But the fact that they give three different answers is exactly why I think the old IUPAC endorsement must be brought in. There isn't a newer one AFAIK.

The fact that this would avoid a large bunch of needless self-contradictions, and contradictions with sources, is a definite plus to me. And yes, I know how it would be from the other side, as I used to be on it. If IUPAC's new project recommends La under Y, I will accept it for Wikipedia (if grudgingly). So I hold to a consistent standard: follow the last actual IUPAC endorsement. Double sharp (talk) 03:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Context is important. Compared to the vast mass of the academic literature, effectively zero chemists have lost sleep over the group 3 issue since 1921. The periodic table on the inside cover of the 2005 Red Book does not form a part of the actual red book recommendations. In the preface it says, "Lesser omissions [from the 1990 edition] include…the several different outdated versions of the periodic table. (That on the inside front cover is the current [internal] IUPAC-agreed version.)" Even Scerri has acknowledged this.

Re IUPAC endorsement of the Lu form, this did not occur. Fluck's mention of the Lu form was a 230-word afterthought in a 4,300 word paper. The report that the afterthought appeared in was neither expressed as a formal recommendation of IUPAC nor did it feature or include any form of formal IUPAC endorsement. The abstract tells you what it is limited to:

"In 1985 the IUPAC Commission on the Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry circulated for public comment a proposed new notation for the groups of the periodic table. This gave rise to worldwide discussion in the chemical literature. This article reviews the historical process that led to the IUPAC proposals, and discusses them in relation to the response within the scientific community."

His afterthought refers to the chosen *-** form as a compromise.

That Scerri said, "Thirdly, I should also mention that figure 3 [Sc-Y-Lu, 32 column] that I call an optimal table, was already endorsed in an earlier IUPAC report, E. Fluck, New Notations in the Periodic Table, Pure and Applied Chemistry, 60, 3, 431-436, 1988" was a misinterpretation and an error of wishful thinking. Sandbh (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sandbh claims that Fluck's afterthought refers to the Sc-Y-* form when it never mentions Sc-Y-* explicitly at all. He also prefers his own WP:OR analysis to a statement by the chair of the current IUPAC project about a past IUPAC decision. Double sharp (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Yes, here is what Fluck wrote:

"In the "Red Book" which will appear in 1988 the same arrangement was chosen for the elements of the scandium group as in the periodic table as originally proposed by CNIC and subsequently published by VCH Verlagsgesellschaft, Weinheini.

It is a compromise. According to the electron configurations of the elements, the scandium group consists of the elements

Sc, Y, Lu, Lr."

When he says it is a compromise, what do you think he might be referring to? What is the PT that ended up in the main body of the 1990 Red Book, rather than in an appendix? Sandbh (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: What I think is not relevant. That would be WP:OR. All I note is that the head of the current IUPAC project says this endorsed Lu and that Fluck never mentions *.

There is no such PT AFAIK. There's only one at the front and three at the back, none in the main body. Double sharp (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: p. 42: the answer to life, the universe, and everything ^_^

PS: Here is a VCH Verlagsgesellschaft, Weinheim table *-** (1985) as mentioned by Fluck. And here is a *-** Ultimate PT authored by Fluck (2007). And here is a nice 32-column La table (2007). Sandbh (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: OK, that's at last a relevant source rather than your own original research. So, OK: maybe Fluck means *-** as his compromise, but one must put that against Scerri having possible access to relevant documents. Therefore I have modified the statement at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Periodic_table, and listed 3 options that I could support (including the old * under Y form). Double sharp (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see some kind of agreement has been reached without my participation, isn't it great :)

On a more serious note though, how do we know if this hypothetical access Scerri might or might not have is real? The reasonable thing would be to wait if such information emerges for us to see and to act if it does. I expect us to make informed decisions (again, for a tertiary source), not guess based on hypothetical information which may or may not exist (and whose relevance, it appears to me, would be questionable anyway until it's open for the wider public).--R8R (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. That's why I just said that Scerri says it means something and that we don't know if he's right. And that's also why my case for it is mostly now based on (1) IUPAC showing Lu when it shows a 32 column form and (2) all those articles in reliable sources from 1921 to 2020 arguing for Lu.

P.S. I should also say that Polish Wikipedia presents a compromise I could definitely agree on: * under Y in 18 column, Lu under Y in 32 column, just like the 1990 IUPAC Red Book. Double sharp (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point of what I'm saying: we can't use information to make an informed decision here if we don't know it. Once we do know it, we may consider it but not before then. Informed decisions are not always needed, but they are needed for Wikipedia. Sandbh has demonstrated well that Scerri is in error on his assessment on the 1988 Fluck report.

Personally, I like way the Polish Wikipedia tackles this issue, too. As a Wikipedia editor, I have nothing to say on that because of my lack of knowledge on kind of sources there are in Polish.--R8R (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's that clear-cut precisely because of what I said, but I don't need the argument anyway, so I cut it. BTW, I am drafting a new RFC question (+ my initial vote) at User:Double sharp/RFC, so maybe you want to comment on neutrality of the question I give.

Well, I am in agreement with Scerri that 18 vs 32 column is a matter of pragmatics. I do not see them as two independent forms of the periodic table, so I would prefer they be consistent. However, to me, anything that gets rid of La under Y on Wikipedia is an improvement and more consistent with latest understanding, so I'm prepared to accept the Polish Wikipedia compromise. Double sharp (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for your question, I think what's missing is the current state of affairs. There are two reasons for this. First, if you're making a case for a change, you should also for the sake of your readers' convenience help them figure what is the default form that you're trying to replace. Second, both -La-Ac and -Lu-Lr are going to be options on the table, so it would make sense to introduce both of them. From there, you can make your case.

I've been thinking about this because I'm planning to try to get rid of WP:ALUM when aluminium is either a GA or an FA. I'll want the reader not to get the feeling they're being swayed towards one option in a place where they're not supposed to be so that they don't feel the whole notion is rigged and get defensive where they should not.--R8R (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Periodic table".The discussion is about the topic Periodic table.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Double sharp (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My greatest apologies, but I've come to a decision.

I am soon going to have no time to edit WP chemistry anyway, and the long group 3 discussion has more or less sucked out all my present desire to contribute to WP chemistry. It just makes me feel unhappy. Therefore, I feel it is best that I stop.

As for aluminium. I gave all the comments I could think of for the sections where I know something, they are maybe more FA material than GA material. And even they themselves are too close to the whole thing about generalities of periodicity, which is a large part of why this time I decided to stop for good. The remainder of it, I do not know so much about, I read that like a layman. With the exception of one minor thing that seemed repetitive (I edited it already), and one citation needed tag I saw, everything looked all right. So I think you're mostly good to go.

Right, that's it. I need a long break. Double sharp (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: It's been fun being a part of the same project with you. It's a shame that it must now come to an end.

I've got a few words to say but seems you're gone already. In that case, have fun, enjoy yourself, keep safe, and I hope to see you here once more.--R8R (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I still had this open in my tabs. So, the same to you, and you can say the words if you want. ;) Double sharp (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there's one thing I have learned from the British, it's that when somebody bids farewell, you simply wish them well in return. In this particular case, it wasn't hard because it was you whom I was wishing well to :)

Seriously, though, this discussion we're having is like you're standing at a doorstop, waving goodbye on your way out, and that's not the time to say any serious words. I could write you an email instead---provided, of course, that you want me to.--R8R (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: I meant to ping you in my last message, it just slipped my mind.--R8R (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please send me an email! In fact I should've said that explicitly. Double sharp (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: sent you an email; I forgot to mention but I'd love to see some confirmation that you got it, so if you've read this message, please let me know if you got it, here or by email.--R8R (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This (from 2018) is quite something, although rather about the latest four (Nh, Mc, Ts, Og). Right, back to lurking. Double sharp (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's very interesting. Thank you for sharing.--R8R (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...on Hs being promoted to FA! I'm glad I could help out along the way (even though unfortunately RL matters came into play nearer the end of the FAC), though the bulk of the credit goes to you and DS. And once things settle down a bit, I'll probably be able to work more consistently on History of the periodic table. ComplexRational (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I'm, too, glad we've finally reached a conclusion. I haven't applied for TFA yet, but I presume that either I will later, or it'll be picked up with one of the TFA coordinators anyway.

By the way, I'd like to ask you a question. At the present moment, the article has 27 notes. That's a lot. I've been wondering if that's not too many? I recall suggesting to Double sharp you shouldn't have too many notes in an article (he was editing thorium) and I followed this rule, too (when I was editing lead). Maybe in this case the article is more technical, and it's fine, but in those two articles, it was not? I haven't made my mind on this, and a second opinion is welcome.

I hope that those things keeping you busy are not unpleasant in character ;) I'm not likely to be very active either, though only time will tell.--R8R (talk) 10:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's mostly academic-related, but it's a transitional period so I just have to adjust. And let's of course not forget that Wikipedia has no deadline, so I'm happy with whatever pace is comfortable for both of us.

Regarding notes, it's mostly a matter of preference as I understand it, but I generally prefer to provide as much information in article text as possible and only use notes when the only alternatives are a serious disruption in the flow or absence of important context. My experience with island of stability taught me to provide enough information to make the article accessible to a layperson without going over all the basics or irrelevant technicalities. I'll have to take a closer look; most seem to have a pretty clear purpose, but some could possibly be shortened or removed altogether. I'll get back to you soon about the details. ComplexRational (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, having no deadline is rather helpful; if there were deadlines, I feel I'd be failing them all otherwise :)

Yes, this has been more or less the idea I've had all along, although I've had some taste for notes that are not needed in the main article text. You see, my consideration is that a Wikipedia article is an overview article. Therefore, some thing don't fit into an article but could be useful to enhance understanding of an article (one prominent example is note e of Introduction to the heaviest elements, although I'd say the same about every note there). And the last review in the last FAC for hassium really did show me that enhancing readability is an important thing... just to what extent things should be spelled out is something that I'm still considering. I agree there are other ways to write an article, but I've always preferred to make them as accessible as reasonably possible. On the other hand, an encyclopedia is not a textbook, either, and there's a fine line between improving accessibility of writing for an encyclopedia and writing for a textbook, not to mention that we should not stray too far from the topic at hand. I'm still figuring out what exactly the constraints are that would allow to explain as much as possible but not too much. I'll be waiting for your comments.--R8R (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational: do you think you could give me those comments during this month? Turns out hassium will be the TFA on October 9, so I’d like to improve the article, if such improvement is necessary, by then.—R8R (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should be able to within the next few days. Thank you for reminding me. ComplexRational (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Hassium article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 9, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 9, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit of a problem to say the most stable isotope is 269, while giving (270) in the picture. Double sharp (talk) 08:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing my attention to this. I will fix this shortly.--R8R (talk) 09:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I'm missing something obvious, but which picture are we talking about? ComplexRational (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about the picture in the blurb. I have already fixed it.--R8R (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 07:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi R8R. I remember our good & helpful cooperations. But by now, there seems to be a disconnection. I can appreciate your contributions, but also there are these negative/uncooperative actions you make. What is going wrong? Is there something I do not see? I'd like to hear & learn from you. -DePiep (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DePiep: Frankly, yes, I do think there is something you don't see, and that particular something is a perspective of yourself and your own actions. I do think that if you were more critical of your own actions around here, you could both take others' actions more lightly and not make actions that cause others disagreements with you.

I remember you identifying my personal attacks on you some time ago. That identification was incorrect, and I've paid extra attention since then to make sure that any subsequent identification of such attacks was equally incorrect. However, on this particular occasion, I must make an exception to make sure my point gets across. I do want to see better discussions myself, and I'm only doing this in hopes that this will stimulate reflection of your actions in you; I'll make sure this is the first and last exception.

The main problems as I see them is that you refuse to take no for an answer and that you don't pay attention to what you do and what consequences your actions may bear. Walking away in defeat gracefully is a sign of a great person; it's something I want to learn to do better myself. This, to say the least, is uncharacteristic of yourself. When someone enters a discussion like the ones we have around here in our Wiki-!democracy, their ultimate goal should be making the strong logical arguments that will convince others to follow them in a consensus. If the consensus is against them, there's that; after all, they are just one person, and they could be missing a legitimate contrary argument or worse, inadvertently or advertently refuse to recognize that legitimate argument. You displayed this well in the Charles Martin Hall argument, where not only did you gather no support, but also had other editors (not including myself) call out the way in which you conducted yourself in the discussion. Generally, if your argument didn't work, you either leave it at that or if you really feel like it, you could try to bring more attention or appeal to a higher court or ask for arbitration. You could make peace with that case where your argument didn't work, as I did when we moved to an -La-Ac group 3 or as Double sharp (eventually) did when he realized he couldn't have it back -Lu-Lr easily. Even if DS made a mistake in the way he behaved during that debate at some point, he has recognized it since then and learned from it, which is only welcome; that's how we people grow stronger. In contrast, not only did you not show any signs of having learned from the Hall dispute, but when there was one occasion where you seemingly did learn something, it didn't become the last time you run into this sort of disagreement.

A different kind of how you don't pay attention to what you're doing and what consequences your actions may have was earlier this year, at Talk:History of the periodic table, when you said the article after all ComplexRational's work was "chaotic, deviating, lack structure and is not an improvement." Not only was that rude, you also decided you could determine---not suggest---for us the people who actually write articles, what is to do done first and what not. If you had formulated the same thing differently, it could very well have been taken as a suggestion that could be considered. The order-like tone was only met with rejection seemingly because you did not pay attention to your words, and when given the chance to show good will and say you were sorry, you didn't take it. It's moments like this that make me think you never admit you're wrong and therefore they don't make me want to seek more conversations with you.

And now this little thing. I was really appalled by the picture you added at first. It was a chaotic mess of different fonts and colors that on its own looked disorganized. I did want to remove it but I didn't do it right off the bat, in great part because I expected you'd revert my revert. I didn't act upon this expectation because I wished to act in good faith and I knew about the standard modus operandi around here, WP:BRD (and I knew you knew about it, too), and that your revert would violate it. So I didn't act as if I thought you would violate that, and I even gave you a ping to indicate that you were free to get to the discussion part of BRD if you had disagreed with me and that I'd listen; but it came as no surprise to me that you did just what I thought you would and violated it. Not only that but then you came to my talk page and said you were looking for cooperation but you had just called out my "habits" on a public page without even having had a long unyielding discussion that would excuse that and I am left to either see no currency in that call for cooperation or assume you don't watch what you're saying. (By the way, I'd love you to see you substantiate the claim that I, as usual, "simply deny arguments": what exactly argument did you put forward that I denied?)

And as for why I revert other edits relatively easily: it may come as a surprise to you, but I actually picked this sort of behavior from you. I always try to explain myself, however. If it did come as a surprise, then this only serves as more proof that you don't pay attentions to your actions.

Now I'll repeat myself and say all of this was written with the sole purpose of getting to a better place in future interactions. If you think that I need to learn something about my behavior around here, then don't bother because I, unlike some people, am perfect and need no corrections. And if you don't agree or think this came out arrogantly, then I suggest you capture this thought and take another read of what I wrote in the previous paragraphs.

I've been around here for almost a decade now. I don't think I've ever had a long heated quarrel with either Double sharp or Sandbh, both of whom have been around for roughly as long, or in fact, anybody at all other than yourself, and I know that the same doesn't hold for you, which is why I think that my words are worth listening to. That being said, if you do think there's something wrong about my behavior, I'm very willing to listen. Let's take this chance to improve future discussions. I'm willing to listen and I expect you to be willing to listen what I just said as you indicated in the initial message of this section.--R8R (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The whole 269 vs 270 issue for hassium is maybe arbitrary anyway because of measurement uncertainty. CIAAW says why:

So maybe we should say that. OTOH, since it is something of a tradition in many places to show the most stable isotope's mass number anyway instead of a standard atomic weight, this would be difficult to actually reflect. Double sharp (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for bringing my attention to this, it made me refresh my understanding of statistics and it will probably aid readers' understanding, too. I added a note in the infobox and corrected another note in the article; I doubt more could or should be done.--R8R (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like what you did. ^_^ I agree that nothing else could really be done here. I've sometimes seen tables that refuse to give atomic weights at all for such elements (e.g. IUPAC themselves), and it makes some sense from a puristic standpoint (since we really don't know), but it's just not the ordinary thing to do. Anyway all these heavy-element atomic weights are provisional till we find longer-lived isotopes or find that there aren't any (probably the former), and in some sense they are not pointful (if you are really working with Bk and need its atomic weight, it will probably be the 249 isotope and not the 247 isotope because the former is easier to make even if shorter-lived). Double sharp (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The general idea of having a 1σ (68%) confidence interval here is correct, but the wording used is not. A 68% confidence interval does not mean that there is a 68% probability that the true value lies within the interval; rather, it means that with repeated sampling, one would expect 68% of the computed intervals to contain the true value. This is a fine detail and common misunderstanding that I learned in basic statistics. I'm not sure how to give a short and simple explanation of this in a note, though. It may be better to leave out the details and say something along the lines of the 1σ error margins overlapping and thus the possibility that either isotope is more stable than the other cannot be ruled out. ComplexRational (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, didn't read R8R's note carefully (I saw he'd added a note and just skimmed it as I was busy). CR is indeed right, and I think his idea of leaving out the details is better. Double sharp (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. It's a relief to know that there is somebody who understand the subject better than I do. You're indeed right; it should be good now, I think?

Still needs a bit of work. Even with many intervals, it still doesn't mean the probability of the true value falling within the interval (in other words, once you know the true value, it either is or isn't, so probability is meaningless). The technically correct formulation is that 68% of the confidence intervals so constructed (for a large number of trials) are expected to contain the true value. This is a distinct concept from any one interval having a 68% probability of containing the true value—that would indeed a credible interval, so I see how confusion can arise. ComplexRational (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, one additional level of complication I had with this in university is that in Russian, both "confidence interval" and "credible interval" are called the same.--R8R (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my statistics class never mentioned them, despite highlighting common misuses of confidence intervals. And curiously, I've never encountered the term in all the articles I read on SHEs (unless I missed it when I wasn't attentive...). ComplexRational (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I got it when you said so, I re-read confidence interval a bit more closely. If I somehow missed this, would you point it out directly?--R8R (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I sound confused, but what exactly do I need to point out? Are we talking specifically about credible intervals, when one or the other is used, or something else? ComplexRational (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said that my note in its present state needed some more work. I don't see how exactly, and that's what I need your help with.--R8R (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As it is, the note reads (such an interval based on an equal number of future measurements, whose result is yet unknown, contains the true value with a probability of ~68.3%).

Regardless of the number of measurements, a confidence interval does not give the probability of containing the parameter (as the current wording suggests). The definition of a confidence interval instead dictates that out of a large number of intervals (not the number of measurements in only one interval) similarly calculated, a certain proportion (here ~68.3%) of these intervals are expected to contain the parameter. Alternatively, a confidence interval can be interpreted as "we are 68.3% confident that the value falls between X and Y". Although it sounds similar, this is a distinct concept from probability because this interpretation is from the researcher's point of view considering experimental constraints and available data, not a mathematical probability (which, as I said above, is inappropriate here).

That said, I would reword the parenthetical definition to focus on interpretation, because I feel that giving the whole technical definition and trying to clarify common misunderstandings would be very wordy and digress from the main point. One way to do this would be (for this constructed interval, researchers may be ~68.3% confident that it contains the true value), but I'm open to other ideas as long as we don't confuse interpretation with probability. I hope this is clear enough for you. ComplexRational (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational: Hmm. I don't get it. The thing is, if we're talking about future measurements, it means we don't know them yet, and that's where probability comes in.

To quote confidence interval: "Various interpretations of a confidence interval can be given (taking the 90% confidence interval as an example in the following). [...] The confidence interval can be expressed in terms of a single sample: "There is a 90% probability that the calculated confidence interval from some future experiment encompasses the true value of the population parameter." I think I said just that, didn't I? If not, could you have the patience to explain to me how so?--R8R (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not getting to this sooner, I've been extremely busy this weekend. I can give a full response by the end of the day on Tuesday; if not, please badger me about it. ComplexRational (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational: the requested prompt.--R8R (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder. I was going to write a full reply tomorrow, but here goes:

After a third look, it does in fact appear that you are making a probabilistic statement about the interval rather than the parameter (half-life), which is correct. I would, though, recommend trimming it to "such an interval based on a future experiment..." (more closely reflecting what you quoted) because the number of future measurements is irrelevant to the concept of the confidence interval and "equal" is not contextualized very well. (The number of measurements or sample size might impact the size of the confidence interval, but not the probability of it containing the true value, as that is something that we define beforehand.) Other than that, I think we have a working explanation in place; it looks good to go as far as I see.

On another note (no pun intended), I haven't seen any other areas of concern before TFA in any other notes, but I haven't had time to very closely examine them since the FAC. If you have specific questions, I'll take a look, but I can't do any broad reviews right now. My workload has gotten rather larger the past week or two, and I can't yet say when or how much it will subside (well, by mid-December it should, but I'm thinking more short-term). I'm very sorry for the poor timing of this, but I'd rather not make commitments that I can't keep. ComplexRational (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your reply. I corrected the note as you suggested, except I used "future experiments" instead of "a future experiment": one could say both have the same meaning here but I decided using plural would be better because there are clearly multiple previous experiments, so it's better to have multiple future experiments, too.

Thanks for letting me know. Best of luck with anything that requires your attention here and now!--R8R (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Might interest you. This too. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely like how Duellmann says under the pretenses of a person who asks questions that his field is interesting and then agrees on his own account :) thank you very much indeed for sharing, I have yet to read that "Q&A" more closely. I'm sure it'll prove useful later. Thanks for the presentation too; I feel like in this case too, it'll be later when I understand all of it completely.--R8R (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (here) DePiep (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi R8R Usually we are engaged somewhere in chemistry articles but on this occasion I'd like your help with a small bit of Russian translation, please. Today I added to an article about a pensioners' protest in Donetsk, in the section on Ed Gold. The reference is a .pdf magazine article in Russian but I need an expert to see what the article actually says and improve the text I inserted to reflect any other useful information suitable for this WP:BLP. Thanks! Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a translation from another source, now, so I think the article is fine. You could give-it the once-over if you have time. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull: it's mostly fine, except the protesters did not lose their pensions entirely; the pensions were cut but not canceled. It may also be interesting that the protesters launched a hunger strike.--R8R (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll change the text to reflect that. One pensioner did die while on hunger strike, as the article has been updated today to say. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I could help. Feel free to write if there's ever something else I could help you with.--R8R (talk)

Hello R8R, I've been adding and organizing barnstars @WP:BARN for a while now. I was wondering if I can change the criteria to your Atomic Barnstar. The current criteria states: "may be awarded to an editor who makes outstanding contributions to articles on atoms and atomic nuclei." I would like to change it to: "may be awarded to an editor who makes outstanding contributions to Chemical element-related articles", and seeing that WikiProject Elements does not have a barnstar yet, your Atomic Barnstar would be perfect for the project. Jerm (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jerm: I feel it's not really the same: chemical elements are not exactly best represented by atoms, and my original intention for the picture I created was somewhat different. But I could craft an element-related barnstar that suits the purpose you've outlined better, or so I think. I have added a barnstar to the list.--R8R (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

R8R Thanks, your barnstar is perfect. I'll add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Participants. Jerm (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		Thanks for making the Elemental Barnstar. It looks awesome! Jerm (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!--R8R (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Trouble at WP:ELEM, round 3: conduct of User:Sandbh. Thank you. Double sharp (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi R8R,

I note this post of yours at WT:ELEM, directed at DePiep, to which he understandably objected. I have been trying to help make the discussions at WT:ELEM more productive, in part by trying to separate comments on content from comments on other editors. It is fine for you to seek clarification from DePiep about his perspective, comments that he has made, etc. Your last paragraph, however, goes beyond that and was counter-productive. It meant that DePiep responded to being painted as an obstruction to progress and that the questions that you posed were overshadowed. Please, if you want to have a conversation with DePiep about such topics, do it on one of your talk pages. Further, I strongly recommend adopting a tone consistent with collegial cooperation / collaboration rather than one that appears to be accusation, if for no other reason than it is more likely to be fruitful.

Thank you.

EdChem (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdChem: I support all of R8R's comments. It is a fair summary of the situation, including the last paragraph. Your recommendation re adopting a tone consistent with collegial cooperation / collaboration is reasonable. It takes two people for this work however. As summarised by R8R this has not been case for the other party. I know, since I was looking forward to a new colour scheme, as put forward by R8R many years ago, and which was favourably viewed by other editors. Nothing has happened since this time for the reasons put forward by R8R. Sandbh (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbh, I recognise that there is baggage brought to the current discussions and that there have been problems in the past. However, the situation at WT:ELEM has been improving and I believe it is in part because I have been commenting on problematic edits / comments. R8R's final comments were not helpful to advancing the discussion of content issues, IMO, and I stand by my decision to come here and say so. I don't want to get bogged down in concerns (justified or not) about past actions if it can be avoided. I hope that R8R will take on board my comments in the spirit in which they were intended and we can all focus on content. EdChem (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EdChem What you refer to as "baggage" is relevant contextual history. The incivility bandwidth at WP:ANI, let alone on a project talk page, following DePeip's expletive laden contribution is, how can I put it, "astonishingly wide". You are of course entitled to your opinion and to express it anywhere you like. I have no expectation for you to justify that, and am surprised you felt a need to do so. R8R's last comment, viewed in the context of 4 years of inaction by the other editor, does not register on the incivility meter (IMO, of course). I do agree with you about not wanting to get bogged down in concerns (justified or not) about past actions if it can be avoided. In this csse, as R8R explained, past inaction has led to where we are today. As such, the contextual history is a relevant consideration if we wish to avoid making the same mistakes, heading into the future. Sandbh (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdChem and Sandbh: Hi, sorry for this delay. I was generally surprised that editors took my words as an outburst against DePiep because there was no intention on my part to write anything like that and because I don't believe I have written anything that warrants such a reaction. One can see that from both the tone of the paragraphs that are not in question and the edit summary, too. However, I eagerly accept that I should've tried to express myself more clearly, however, since several people reacted to it differently from what I had expected. I'll try to explain what I did have in mind.

What happened a few years ago and why bring it up now

Several years ago, we started a discussion on how to recolor the periodic table scheme we used; there was a general agreement the coloring scheme used at the moment wasn't very good. I thought that improving that would be an easy task, so I suggested another coloring scheme. DePiep gave some constructive and actionable criticism which helped improve my scheme. It was clearly better than what we had at the moment, so I thought it could do, but DePiep asked not to introduce the new scheme saying it wasn't perfect, and expressed a desire to invent their own coloring scheme. I thought back in the day that the matter was in capable hands and I should sit and wait (although I found it hard to believe back in the day that the new scheme could be significantly improved).

Four years passed, and DePiep hasn't produced a new scheme so far. We didn't get an improvement that was at hand back then and we didn't get one later, and it is therefore not too hard to see that the decision to wait for a perfect scheme, as illusionary as the concept of a "perfect" scheme is, was a wrong one. I'm not, and was not, assigning blame for that wrong decision; this doesn't help us get anywhere. (If I were to do that, I'd have to assume a part of the guilt too, since I supported the wrong decision, and I'm conscious of that.) What matters is that we get things done. We should, I thought, recognize that waiting alone without a deadline was not enough, and we had to change our approach. I did see that DePiep was still suggesting we wait for an undetermined period of time again, and there was little explanation of what we should be waiting for. We've been there, it didn't work out the first time and there was no guarantee it would work the second time; a deadline is meant as a guarantee we'd get at least something. We should learn from past mistakes and that why I brought it up, fully conscious of my part in that past mistake, too.

What I intended to say and what I did say

While DePiep's words were generally driving the reader to assume that we, again, should wait for a result in an undetermined future, there was no explicit "Stop, don't" yet, nothing that one could take as direct obstruction of the process. That is precisely why I didn't say that. I said, "I do want you to help us create a better scheme, possibly even create the one we'll go with; by all means, please go ahead. However, if, all things considered, you can't aid that, then I'll ask you to at least not obstruct creation of such a scheme by other editors" -- noting that this position could potentially evolve into obstruction in the future. It is also clear from the quote I gave this was not the only scenario I considered.

I have consulted the Oxford dictionary (the one Google uses). The first meaning of the word "obstruct" is, "block (an opening, path, road, etc.); be or get in the way of"; I take it from here this word does not necessarily imply poor will---something I did not mean to suggest---on behalf of the one who impedes something, merely the consequence of such impediment. My standard dictionary of choice, Merrian-Webster, also does not hint that poor will is a necessary part of this word. Therefore, I take it what I said does not amount to a grievance against DePiep's actions nor does it imply poor will on their part, and I didn't intend to say either of those things. Is there something I'm missing?

(When Double sharp expressed his concern about the word "obstruction," I was genuinely surprised but tried to downplay it by saying that I'd take it back if DePiep resolves my concern about indefinite waiting. DePiep has done that, and I'm happy to conclude my concern is resolved, and as I promised, I'll retract it shortly, even if I still don't see what precisely the problem here was in the first place.)

I hope this answers all of your concerns; if not, please let me know why not. I would've loved to say that I could see how I was wrong and this wouldn't happen again, but I genuinely don't see what I should do differently the next time to not end up in a similar situation other than making myself more clear.

@DePiep and Double sharp: FYI.--R8R (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Thank you. I think, yes, this might be an English thing: when you use "obstruct" regarding a person's behaviour, it tends to have the connotation that the obstruction is deliberate. That is, that difficulties are being caused for other people when they didn't have to be, so there's some connotation of poor will indeed. So that's why I was concerned about the word. Sorry, I sometimes forget that you are not a native speaker because your English is so good. ^_^ I think we'll be fine as long as we remember that. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not accept that R8R is pushing a WP:OWNership upon me. Framing me this way is bad faith. Doing so four years later, and repeatedly on multiple pages so, is strengthening the bad smell and also forumshopping. I will not tread into 'arguments'. -DePiep (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DePiep: It's rather disheartening to see such a jab at myself, since there is, and was, no ownership concern raised in this instance whatsoever, and, in fact, I stated the opposite in my reply and recognized my share of responsibility for ending up where we are now. Can I expect either a substantiation of the claim that I pushed ownership on you, or a retraction of it?--R8R (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: thank you. I indeed was not aware that this subtext was rather pronounced, and this only shows how much I have yet to learn. I'll definitely have it in mind in the future, and I'll try to make it a habit to double-check if there is room for misinterpretation of my words.--R8R (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel the need to redo my TL;DR perception of your post. It should not be my job or responsility to analyse and interpret excessive posts. If you think there is a misunderstanding, try preventing that by writing less meandering, or less long. -DePiep (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DePiep: Of course, you don't have to analyze and interpret anything. However, you didn't have to write what you wrote, either. If you do want to write a reply to something, you should read it carefully. That post wasn't even aimed at you, and you didn't have to respond, yet you did. Mistakes may happen, and admitting them is one thing; not reading carefully something you respond to and not admitting a problem with that is another.

I don't feel the need for you to redo your perception of that post, either, the need is to get the facts on the table. I do feel the need that you answer this question: what was the basis for the claim that I was pushing ownership upon you? If you want me to change my behavior, you could point out what was the specific thing I have done wrongly so that I don't make the mistake again. I will stress the need for an answer by citing Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "some types of comments are never acceptable: [...] Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." Saying that I pushed ownership upon you is a serious accusation, one that I might seriously need to work on if it is correct (and wrong on my part), so I expect that you can back it up with something and expand upon it, or that you recognize you made a mistake and retract this comment. Either of these will be fine; however, failure to accomplish either of those will mean that claim was nothing but an unfounded personal attack.

Seriously, I tried hard to write a somewhat reconciliatory post that would at least relieve at least some of the current tension, in which I didn't attack you once, admitted I was a part of why we ended up where we did with respect to the issue at hand, and admitted what good behavior you have shown. In response, I only get a personal attack I can't act upon because there is no justification provided for it. It is disheartening, I didn't say that the last time to look smug or anything. Can you back up the claim you have put forward?--R8R (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote it, I read it in your post. I don't want to spend any time on this. Then adding blame to me that I did not "have" to reply (while you pinged me) is adding more to the pile.

Instead. I suggest if you don't mean to say it, then don't write it. For tomorrow: again don't write it. Stop it. -DePiep (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• R8R, I also read "obstruction" / "obstructive" as having connotations of either deliberate action or something that causes significant irritation / annoyance or both. English has many words where the denotation from a dictionary can fail to convey the connotations that a native speaker is highly likely to infer (and assume was implied). I do not have the skill in any other language to know the extent to which this applies in other languages – my guess is that it is similar – but it is something that I have seen come up at en.WP on other occasions. I admit this presents you with a challenge, and one that is complicated in your case by your fluency in English as your writing does not immediately make me recognise that you are not a native speaker. Someone whose writing makes it clear to a reader that they are not a native speaker triggers me to consider whether what seems to be being said is actually what was meant, especially when it is something being said indirectly or by the connotations of language.
• I'm glad to read that this was not what you intended.
• The posts since then make it clear that there remains tension between you and DePiep, which leads me to ask: what useful outcomes for the future do you see as coming from continuing that line of discussion? Rightly or wrongly, DePiep is clearly annoyed, not keen to engage, and responding to aspects that do seem accusatory – so is pursuing this productive? Whether fair or not, it seems to me to have reached the point where the user talk page discussion is not productive and so you face the choice of dropping it or pursuing some other form of dispute resolution. EdChem (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdChem, DePiep, Double sharp, and R8R: Knowing R8R for as long as I have, I was disappointed to see R8R's comments interpreted in any way other than WP:IGF. We all know of R8R's non-English speaking background, yet some of us feel inclined to interpret what says in the worst possible way. Why, other than to impute malign intent rather than WP:IGF? I declare a WP:COI since I supported R8R in his ANI v DePiep. Sandbh (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: I appreciate your concern, but don't worry about it, it's fine, really. I'm glad to be treated by default in the same manner as other editors, and if anything, I'm flattered to hear my English did not make either Double sharp or EdChem think I could have missed something. I have provided an explanation and I take it they have accepted it. To me, that's the end of it. (I wish this section had stopped at that, which I thought it would when I was writing the said explanation.) There are no hard feelings on my part about either DS or EdChem.

@EdChem: I was going to end the discussion on this note even before you wrote your last post, so I'm obviously not going to continue it now. I simply want to summarize what I have seen so far and my thoughts about it.

While my original post was, as I see now, up for a different interpretation than the one I had intended, I tried to relieve the tension other editors have sensed by explaining how I didn't mean what people seemed to have thought I meant. I also tried to show some good will with my interpretation of DePiep's actions in the course of such a reply, which I thought I have done rather well by both pointing out what positive actions DePiep had undertaken and by accepting I was a part of the reason for ending up where we are now with respect to the topic at hand (PT recoloring). Again, both Double sharp and yourself seem to have taken my response positively. DePiep, however, said a nasty thing about my behavior (by claiming I had pushed ownership upon them, even though this directly contradicted what I had actually said: I accepted I was a part of the explanation why we ended up where we did) and didn't provide an explanation. This is the sort of thing that is never acceptable per Wikipedia:No personal attacks (I provided a specific quote in the previous post). I tried to give DePiep benefit of doubt and asked what it was the led to such a comment against myself. I didn't get an answer. I pointed out that an explanation could help me change my behavior if there was behavior to be changed, and I pointed out that a failure to do that would constitute a breach of an official policy, and this sort of accusations is generally unpleasant to deal with. The response was, "I don't want to talk about it, stop it." There is no point in asking any further questions, no answer it is then. I am (once again) left in a situation where I hear a bad accusation against myself, I don't get any substantiation of such a claim, and I have to live with that. I will take no further action for the time being.

I understand it there was hope during the last ANI that we wouldn't run into this sort of thing again. I thought these hopes were ungrounded, but I agreed to play along and not to try to be a part of the problem, at least not on purpose. I think I wasn't a part of the problem this time, or even if my words could be interpreted otherwise, I have tried to make sure my words were interpreted the way I had intended them to be, and this attack happened after such an explanation on my part. If my assessment is wrong on that, you're very welcome to correct me. I fear this may not be the last time something like this happens; there is no indication something's going to change.--R8R (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your good will, hopefully things will improve over time. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case if you wish, as a witness. Jehochman ^Talk 02:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I did not get this ping either, and only saw you had commented because it showed up in my watchlist. I think what you need to do to fix it is at Help:Fixing failed pings (although I admit it wasn't that intuitive for me for a while). Double sharp (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Elements 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, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been added as a party to the case request on the decision of an arbitrator. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]