User talk:Elemimele

It's good to have you back! bonadea contributions talk 08:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bonadea: thanks! Elemimele (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't remember if we directly interacted during the big Tim Hunt brouhaha, or whether we were just participating in the vicinity of each other; whichever it was, I thought your contributions were consistently thoughtful and constructive. I was sorry to see you unhappy about it all, and I'm glad that you've returned. Happy editing, JBL (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks loads, I've really appreciated all the supportive, positive comments since coming back - and I'm definitely steering clear of controversy for the foreseeable future! Elemimele (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Elemimele! I wanted to welcome you back to Wikipedia and let you know that I'm happy to see that you've managed to work out your emotions and feelings and resume your volunteer work on the project. The self-evaluation of one's own emotions (unfortunately) isn't a commonly observed behavior with editors on this project; the fact that you did this on your own is commendable and a rare (and special) personality trait - don't ever let it leave you! ;-)

I'm also messaging you because I saw that you made this request (now archived) and while you were logged out of your account (you obviously had no choice, since you had wikibreak enforcer enabled on your account, you couldn't log into it). To keep your personal information (namely, your IP address) safe from public exposure and possible harassment, I went ahead and redacted your IP information from the discussion and suppressed the information from both the revision history of ANI, as well as the archive page that the discussion was eventually moved to. No action is required on your end; I've already taken care of everything in that regard for you.

Please let my know if you have any questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to answer them and discuss them with you. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Really appreciate that, thank you! Elemimele (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Elemimele - Of course; happy to be of assistance. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Elemimele. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Joachim Richborn, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Cumulative density function has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Trovatore (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't intend to delete your post in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pes-caprae: I have a faint memory of half-dropping my phone and wondering whether I'd done something like that: should have checked my contributions list to check. Sorry about that! PamD 23:08, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@PamD: no worries, I often fade out of AfD conversations anyway; I feel that when I've said my bit, it's time to step back and let others say theirs, and trust the closer to balance it all up. I didn't feel all that strongly about pes-caprae anyway. I ought to stop AfD-ing and get back to translating organ builders... (although that involves being frustrated with German wikipedia for general referencing, and AfC reviewers for their not liking general referencing) Elemimele (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Elemimele. I wonder if you noticed that I responded to your comments at Talk:Oleg Burlakov#Merge proposal. I also re-posted the merge tags, to try to get a robust discussion going on the Talk page. I hope you can continue in the conversation, and if you have any ideas how to get more voices to join so we can make some progress on this issue, I would really appreciate it. Thanks so much, MarcusEllington90 (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I raised it at the BLP noticeboard, but no one seems terribly interested. I am frustrated by this particular article because it doesn't seem to me to conform to Wikipedia's standards, but I can't assess the Russian sources, and don't know the Russian press. It looks like a case of an article that's doomed to be inadequate because the main proponent of the article can simply ignore all attempts at change, and you've got a COI. It's a stalemate. I have no idea what to do. It's not really my field of expertise anyway, I can't remember how I came to be mixed up in it. Elemimele (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for posting this issue to the BLP noticeboard. I share your frustration, especially when the merge tags have once again (for the third time) been deleted, and this time with no explanation at all. I understand that trying to figure out what's what on the Burlakov case page can be overwhelming. I plan on carefully going over the article and isolating exactly what content would remain after the redundant (already on Oleg Burlakov) and gossip/slanderous and poorly sourced information has been removed. Hopefully then you and others can get a better idea of whether Burlakov case merits being a stand-alone article (maybe by another name) or should be merged into Oleg Burlakov. I'll ping you when that's done. Thanks so much for your efforts to help. MarcusEllington90 (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm involved in this, so there's little I can do. I'm frustrated that the BLP noticeboard discussion seems to have got archived without the problem being solved. The previous ANI fizzled out without anything getting solved. I've raised it again at ANI, which I consider such an unpleasant place that it should be treated as a last resort, because this really is last resort territory. Hopefully this time it might attract attention from someone who can assess the situation independently from outside. Ideally this would be a case for a mediated dispute resolution, but my feeling is that it's unlikely there would be enough engagement for the situation to be resolved. Elemimele (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I saw your apology when offering a well justified delete rationale for a poor article. Wikipedia is improved by creation of worthwhile articles on notable entities and by the deletion of those which fail to meet the inclusion criteria. Please never apologise for doing what you genuinely believe is the correct thing. I am not saying this because you agree with me. I would say it were you to disagree, too. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:30, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

You had asked whether DRN can handle a dispute where one of the parties is a paid editor, and I answered that question with a Yes. However, I also said that the Burlakov dispute could not be discussed at DRN while it was pending at WP:ANI, where you opened the case. You expressed a concern that there were two editors who were approaching the article from opposite directions. I will add that another reason why I would be uneasy about trying to moderate a dispute between ME90 and Ssr is that Ssr doesn't appear to be editing constructively. I don't know what they are trying to do other than complain about sockpuppetry, but there is a right way to address concerns about sockpuppetry, and it isn't by yelling. So one of those editors is a paid editor, which is not a problem as such because they have made a declaration, but it would impose an additional responsibility on the moderator to maintain neutrality. I am not sure what the other editor is trying to do. I am relieved not to be trying to moderate between them. As we know, I started the Merge Discussion, and you took part in it. Maybe that may take care of things.

By the way, I think that Ssr was right in removing the Merge tags. Those were edits that should not have been made by a paid editor. So now they were made by a volunteer editor in good standing. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I very much appreciate your action in making everything above board and regular. It's frustrating because Burlakov is a subject in which I really have no interest, but I can't really walk away from such a messy article without trying. ANI is not a great place but I did feel that there was a layer of intractable behavioural stuff going on, which prevented getting down to the content beneath; having tried interacting with the editors and with the BLP noticeboard, I couldn't think where else to go. When I wrote my merge support yesterday, I realised that the gossipy, attacky stuff weakens the Burlakov Case article's only real claim to exist: that it's a type-specimen of Russian oligarch inheritance controversy. If the reader can't see the overall picture because of a morass of irrelevant details, then the article has lost its value. I hope when the yelling is over, we will get a cleaner article. Thank you for your efforts and calm input. Elemimele (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD. I would like to hear your thoughts about the process. Please check this survey if you are willing to respond.Czarking0 (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Based on your comment, I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dates for Easter. Andre🚐 20:20, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I've done a major update to Bernard Wiseman, using both citations you mentioned in the article's AfD along with citations I found. I think this update will be enough to show that the article's subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Let me know what you think.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@SouthernNights: thank you for your work. It can be hard to track down information about people in that pre-internet window. I do think that when our readers are likely to be curious about a subject (they've come across Wiseman's books or other work and they're wondering who he is) we should try to answer their curiosity. It would be a pity to lose this article. Elemimele (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Glad to help out. I added more info and citations to the article today. And I agree that this article is needed here. SouthernNights (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

The AfD was closed as a keep!!! Woohoo!!! SouthernNights (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@SouthernNights: I'm glad, and like the best of AfD's, its exposure to threat led to the article being improved (by you!), so a good outcome all round! Elemimele (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Joachim Richborn, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 24% of accepted submissions, well done! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

• See the quality assessment scheme to find out how to improve the article.

Future articles

• Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.

• Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Next steps

• Find other Wikipedia articles related to your topic and add links pointing to the new article. This helps readers find it.
• Group the article with similar subjects by adding relevant categories.
• You may consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's Did you know section.
• Wikipedia is a work in progress. You can continue to expand and improve the new article.
• The new article will become eligible to be indexed on search engines once patrolled or after 90 days; search engines may take time to reflect this.
• For friendly peer support regarding editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a question and answer hub for new editors.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

ChrysGalley (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

With apologies, for the long delay before the review @Elemimele. Thank you for all the effort on this new article, and I am glad you persisted. You clearly understand how German wikipedia is fairly laid back about "generalised" referencing, and I think the red links to de and elsewhere are fine. There is a lot of the lower section which is not specifically sourced, hence I added a maintenance tag, but I can see it is beneficial, and potentially sourceable over time. In the top half, I did put in a fairly performative reference to his Hamburg origins via the Fock 1939 article, which is at least online. It may be an idea to "mine" that particular source and repeat the SFN that I used just to get some more verification in place, but I don't think it's a big deal. Thanks again. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@ChrysGalley: Thanks so much for the effort you've put into this; I'll try to have a look back at it and see if I can improve things further. I sometimes lose heart with doing translations, because despite the large (and valid) concerns raised about LLM, GoogleTranslate is getting very good. There is really only value in doing manual Wikipedia translations if I try to improve the article a little while I do it, and of course make sure the technical vocabulary is correct (machine translations are still often a bit rubbish about that). Finding extra sources and using sources better is one of the ways we can make translation worthwhile. Elemimele (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Elemimele. Thank you for your work on Joachim Richborn. Another editor, Scope creep, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Article needs proper sfn/nowiki> tags for the references. One seems to work but not the rest.}} To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code|<nowiki>{{Re|Scope creep}}

. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

scope_creepTalk 22:04, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi. How are you? I hope you remember helping out with the merge of "Burlakov case" with "Oleg Burlakov." I am working on edits now to remove poorly sourced content and improving the NPOV of the page. Since you were helpful before, I am hoping you might not mind looking over my edit request, found at Talk:Oleg Burlakov#Biography section edit request. It is a straightforward edit, and should be simple for you to implement (I don't want to do it myself because of my COI). Thanks so much. MarcusEllington90 (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hallo @Elemimele,

sorry for pinging you - I thought at first it's best to communicate via the Flavan-3-ol talk page, but I assume it's better here. The current state of Flavan-3-ol is a bit misleading (e.g. there are not many flavanols in chocolate, so it shouldn't be in that category), and I would be happy to help to improve it, but I'm obviously not going to to make any changes. If you would find it useful, I can add some information to the talk page (or anywhere else) as appropriate.

Thanks,

Ggck2 (talk) Ggck2 (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@Ggck2:, I'm glad you're back. I've had that article on my back-burner for ages because it seemed to me that it has become a battle-ground; an article should reflect its subject, not the ethics of those who wrote it.

I don't much care about the "where flavan-3-ols are found" sentence because these sentences in Wikipedia are often (usually?) very misleading. They will often be very, very specific, for example our article on chlorogenic acid has three sentences on where it's found "in food", the first of which is "Chlorogenic acid and the related compounds cryptochlorogenic acid, and neochlorogenic acid have been found in the leaves of Hibiscus sabdariffa", as though this plant were something super-special in possessing this strange and unusual chemical. In actual fact it's extremely common and found in vast swathes of the plant kingdom. Someone has just hyper-focused on the first paper they found.

But the problem with removing chocolate from the flavan-3-ol article is that there are lots of sources asserting that chocolate can be rich in these flavanols. There's a much lighter viewpoint here:

By the way, I'm still wondering about going to the dispute resolution noticeboard on the previous fight about the Cosmos study. It sits uncomfortably with me that a whole set of peer-reviewed papers are being excluded from wikipedia because of what looked to me like a slightly naive anti-corporation crusade. I think, even though you have a conflict of interest, you would be entitled to take part in a dispute resolution if I started one. If I do, I'll have to make sure I round up all the relevant people on all sides, both to avoid bias/canvassing, and also because you can't resolve a dispute unless everyone with a viewpoint is involved.

I think, with a conflict of interest, you can also write on the talk page. You can certainly make edit requests there, but the problem is that when there has been ill-feeling and trips to ANI, it might be that no one actually processes them. Elemimele (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@Elemimele Thank you very much! As flavanols are such a diverse group of compounds, a section on composition and origin might actually be quite useful, especially as different types of flavanols have quite different effects - although that might be beyond what would be appropriate here. My main issue with chocolate is really that it's so often promoted as a health food based on the alleged flavanol content. But if chocolate is included, tea and berries probably should also be added as category - especially as tea is the main source for flavanols in the UK (and most other countries where tea is the standard drink).

Resolving the dispute would be useful, I agree. There does not appear to be a standard approach whether studies are mentioned or not. Personally, I would find it useful if key studies are included, at least as "further reading". And especially in nutrition, large studies are unfortunately are so uncommon, that it is noteworthy - but whether it should be included is a different question.

I also think that the research/regulation section needs to be revised. At the moment, it seems to be very disjointed by mentioning some beneficial effects and a recommendation - but then also emphasising health claims which contradict each other, with EFSA granting one and the FDA essentially rejecting it. The problem with these health claims is that they appear to be very authoritative, but they are mainly based on the submitted dossier. In this case, this was a specific amount of a very specific extract (high flavanol cocoa powder), and the enforcement letter actually states that this is different from flavanols or cocoa flavanols.

Is there any template or "best practice" on how to describe physiological effects of compound in a neutral way? Ggck2 (talk) Ggck2 (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's the Wikipedia standard advice: reflect the sources. This means that when there are a whole load of claims, counter-claims and disputes, all we can do is summarise the controversy as fairly as we can manage. It's very hard; articles about chemicals have a dual role, they can discuss the chemistry and biology of the molecule, but they also have to deal with the societal issues, impacts, and health. Sometimes the latter feels more like a celebrity bust-up in the tabloids than a calm discussion of chemistry in Annual Reviews. Basically, FDA and EFSA are both big and important enough that their views are worth quoting, and if they disagree, we say so. Good secondary reviews are the best sources. It's tempting to write our own review and cite a huge amount of primary sources, but that's not really what Wikipedia should do - we're supposed to be tertiary, though it doesn't show much in our technical articles. Elemimele (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

There are not many good reviews for the majority of flavanols unfortunately. There are some on cocoa flavanols and tea (because that's where most research happened), but that's about it. And as is common in nutrition, there is not a lot of data on adverse effects (epicatechin has been used as a drug in the 80s - and had to be taken off the market due to side effects).

The problem with EFSA and FDA is usually their scope - they do exactly what they are asked and this can be easily exploited (I think there is a health claim for water that does exactly that). There are some attempts to move towards a more formal assessment of non-nutrients (like fibre), but such things can take a long time.

What would be a really interesting (and possibly useful) project would be to "standardise" articles on compounds used in nutrition (or at least polyphenols). They are very variable - and sometimes even contradictory. Ggck2 (talk) Ggck2 (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@Elemimele I've just noticed the Dispute Resolution - is this something where I should do something? There also might be a mistake with usernames - could it be that Zeft and Gruban should be separate? Ggck2 (talk) Ggck2 (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I messed that up. I hope I have corrected it. I also put a message on Robert McClenon's talk page as he is a major figure in DR, admitting my mess-up, so he can advise on sorting it out. It's utterly critical that Zefr in particular is there, because they are the main person arguing that COSMOS should not be mentioned. I wanted to offer Gruban the chance to be involved as they seem to have replied to a third-opinion request, but their reply doesn't seem to have solved the problem. I am not wedded to flavan-3-ols. I'm slightly worried that I seem to be in the middle of a disagreement with Zefr on another phytochemical page, and I really don't want to become argumentative as meeting our "opponents" half-way often leads to a better outcome. But I don't think it's healthy to have articles that cannot change because we can never agree. Elemimele (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and as to whether you should take part: I believe that is entirely up to you. You've been quite open about your situation, and no doubt if someone agrees to moderate the discussion, they can advise on whether your COI is an issue. To my mind, your temporary block was because of the situation with two accounts, not for misbehaving over flavanols, and in any case has been lifted. Weirdly there doesn't seem to be a "summary of the dispute" section for me! I'll maybe add one for me... Elemimele (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I assume it takes quite some time to understand all the procedures and customs here.

There is a big problem in nutrition that people make bold claims based on rather weak evidence, because there is very little oversight. This doesn't mean all research is bad, but there appears to be a tendency to be too sceptical - which also doesn't help.

Ggck2 (talk) Ggck2 (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's why despite my disagreement with Zefr, I have some sympathy with their position. We live in a world where there are a lot of exaggerated claims. At a crude level, if you're an academic, you don't get funding if your grant proposals can be summarised as "I'd like you to give me £500K to look at flavonoids because some of them are pretty and rather cute, and I enjoy playing with them." It works much better if you can claim that your favourite flavonoid is going to cure a major disease or make the population vastly healthier. Unfortunately, over-blown claims tend to reduce people's faith in science in general. It's a tricky balance. (Zefr, I'm pinging you because it's not fair to be discussing your viewpoint here without you getting a chance to tell me I'm misrepresenting you - also because I'm feeling guilty at being so aggressive on your talk-page. I'm genuinely hoping we can arrive at some sort of agreement on some of these phytochemical pages) Elemimele (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the problem is that even with such claims, it's becoming increasingly difficult to get funding. It would be good if there was more funding for fundamental research - but at the moment, it seems to be going the other way.

Polyphenol research has been around for a very long time (including a brief stint as vitamin and even as drug in the 80s), and since they're in fruits and vegetables, it's generally not too surprising that studies find beneficial effects. What is really expensive are studies with isolated compounds, especially when it includes the synthesis of standards etc. Ggck2 (talk) Ggck2 (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I saw your disagreement and I actually read the article in question; it looks quite solid to me and doesn't really make any preposterous statements. But I think it is sensible for me to stay out of it.Ggck2 (talk) Ggck2 (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm open about my situation: I'm an analytical chemist, I don't do my own research. Personally I hate the flavan-3-ols because they're a pain to measure, compared to nice normal flavonoids. Give me kaempferol glycosides any day! But yes, it's difficult to justify fundamental research without mentioning some possible benefits, and that's where the slippery slope into exaggerated claims begins. Fortunately, I only have to analyse things, I don't have to write the proposals. I use Wikipedia as a reader, as a source of information about phytochemicals, so I'm more focused on their chemistry and biosynthesis rather than their applications, but I do like to be able to find the literature on their previous analysis/study, and that tends to be application linked - hence my desire as an editor to include at least a brief mention of wild attempts at curing diseases with them. Elemimele (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

The normal phase method? I've done my share of food analysis of polyphenols, and I prefer analysing metabolites; there are still challenges, but at least they work well with reasonably normal conditions,

And I agree with the latter - I think adding information is not an endorsement either way. There is a problem either way, not enough scepticism is bad, but too much can also be stiffing. Working in nutrition means that I'm usually accused of both. Ggck2 (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm really sorry that I appear to have derailed the DRN for flavanols - I probably should simply have stayed out of it after my first statement. Whether intentional or not, Zefr is very good in making quite outrageous statements that cause me to respond. I think in the interest of an good discussion, it would be best for both of us to stay out of the RfC - the information are all available after all.

Thank you for doing this!Ggck2 (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and the point of both DR and RfC is to thrash it out and see if we can find middle ground on which we can agree. It's worth a try. I think the fundamental difficulty may be that not many wikipedia editors care two hoots about plant secondary metabolites, which makes it difficult to build a broad consensus. Elemimele (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree - and in the grant scheme of things, they're not that important. My concerns are that instead of trying to be neutral, there is an attempt to be too negative. If flavanols can induce liver damage (as we say they do), they have a physiological effect - so trying to keep this statement out creates a contradiction in itself.

Regarding COSMOS: I find it somewhat disappointing that Zefr first declared no interest in taking part in the DRN - and then starts to make completely unfunded accusations. I honestly don't care whether the study is mentioned: I think it is appropriate for the subject, but I'm equally happy with the opposite decision. I don't benefit from this in any way (how would I?). One can disagree with the inclusion without getting personal and distorting facts (e.g. a failed Phase 2 trial).

Do you thinkI should stay out of it? I'm happy to do so as I don't really want to inflame a discussion more than necessary. Ggck2 (talk) 11:05, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Ggck2 I can't tell you whether to say anything, or what, as having started the DR, it's really important that I don't bias the process. Ideally, an RfC should attract broad participation from everyone who has a viewpoint, whatever it is, and I'm anxious not to canvas. What I would say is that if you feel you're putting yourself in a difficult position, or you're worried that anything you intend to say is inappropriate, you could try asking the moderator of the DR. He is, I believe, an admin, and is in any case extremely experienced in Wikipedia's rules for COI and handling disputes, so he may be able to advise, from a neutral position. Elemimele (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you - that's a good suggestion! Ggck2 (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Hallo @Elemimele - the RfC on flavanols is already live. Ggck2 (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I'm as daft as a brush. I'll compose something Elemimele (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2026 (UTC)