User talk:Nucleophilic

- In some cases, awards have arguably omitted similar discoveries made earlier. For example, the 2000 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for "the discovery and development of conductive organic polymers" in 1977 ignored the much earlier discovery of similarly highly conductive iodine-doped polypyrroles by Donald Weiss and coworkers.^[2] and DeSourvill et al ^[3] as well as an earlier report of an actual organic semiconductor electronic device. For reviews, see ^{[4] [5]}. This device is now in the National Museum of American History "Smithsonian Chips" collection.^[6]. See figure.

Let me get this right: you're telling me to read an article that I wrote? I agree that it's ironic and there's lots of confirmation bias going on, but not for the reasons you suggest. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I personally am not bothered, but you attack not only myself, but other editors, in a non-civil way, please stop. Esuzu should not invite me to the Nobel articles talk, and you should not paint it canvassing because we all very well know that I watch those pages and that I was a major participant before his invitation. Materialscientist (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not your participation that I object to, but the fact that you did not correct isuzu when he went WP:canvassing. Clearly unaware this is forbidden, isuzu even announced this on your talk page beforehand and you apparently encouraged it. As he notes on his talk page usertalk:isuzu, he was not getting any response on the nobel prize talk page, where by WP:concensus the debate was supposed to stay. When you took on the mantle of an admin, you also took on several obligations. Nucleophilic (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but. You misunderstand the policy - canvassing would be inviting someone for a discussion which they would (likely) be unaware of without the invitation. Materialscientist (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

True, but it begs the point. Most importantly, there are specific guidelines to prevent canvassing abuses. I won't bore you with another recantation-- See wp:canvassing and wp:concensus. Again, Esuzu broke all these rules. Not only did you not correct him, you also participated. Nucleophilic (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nucleophilic, I've opened a section here to discuss the sentence you want to add to V. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to let your know that by such edits you are losing my respect for you as an intellectual editor. Talk pages are reserved for improving their articles. The polyacetylene discussion is quite settled and in its current state has nothing to do with the Nobel Prize article. You do not have to reply. Materialscientist (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the conversation on talk:polyacetylene is quite relevant to the Noble prize article, if only because it pertains to a Nobel prize, but also because this issue has been the subject of extensive discource on the Nobel prize talk page and possibly might be taken up again.

Otherwise, I am merely attempting to solicit comments by other editors on pages where this subject has been previously discussed or where editors have expressed an interest in the issue. Naturally, in a completely neutral manner, merely drawing attention to the talk page. See WP:concensus. I anticipate additional contributors.

As is my custom, I urge an extensive reading of the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Nucleophilic (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

which is WP:TALK in this case. Nobel Prize and acetylene articles are so different that nobody from Nobel Prize article watchers would delve into that discussion. WP:CHEMS is the place to ask, (if you are keen to learn). In this particular case, the Nobel prize commentary itself acknowledged that conductive polymers were known before Heeger, thus you are trying to break a wrong wall - the issue is not in the novelty, but in that Nobel Prize is not always awarded for a new discovery. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, the issue on the page is the Nobel prize given for conductive polyactylenes. So the subject is directly relevant, as wittnessed by the rather extensive discussion just above on the talk page. And the Nobel committee merely noted the compounds had been work with long before, without a single mention of any work with high-conductivity variations. Surely they would have mention this, if only to head off questions about whether they knew about this work. As for "discovery"--- Nobel's will reads "shall have discovered", the Nobel citation reads "discovery and development". If that is not what they meant, then why say it this way ?. Any other interpretation is OR. Nucleophilic (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for advising me about the various pages. I will follow with interest. Drjem3 (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Me too Pproctor (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Knowing your professional interest in neurosciences and neuropathology, you might want to check out Dissociative identity disorder. We can always use editors who know their stuff. Drjem3 (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

From my rather quick read, your article looks OK to publish. I made one change and may make more later. Also, suggest title be "Peter Proctor" rather than "Peter H Proctor." Also may want to post notices over on melanin, etc. where there may be editors interested. Otherwise, Looks good. Drjem3 (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents." Jesanj (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments is linked there too. Plus it makes no practical point to have the same thing said in two different places when I was about to reply at the relevant talk page. Jesanj (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

With due respect. You should have said this. Rude to revert without explaining why. BTW, wikipedia depends upon concensus. My experience is that comments sometimes get removed when the subject doesn't want other editors to get wind of a possibly contentious editor. Keeps them from ganging up on him. Not the case here, naturally. Nucleophilic (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:CIRCULAR, this is not how WP:V works. Jesanj (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It was the last time I participated in the policy pages. In fact, I have seen editors chided for repeating things on a page that were well-covered and well-cited on another page, rather than just using a wikilink. Admittedly a while ago. Before you started posting here, IIRC. Perhaps it is time I get involved in policy again. Otherwise, it gets left to the POV-pushers. BTW, the business about reverting talk pages is not policy, but merely an essay. Thanks for drawing it to my attention. Nucleophilic (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

To have the history of the preceding edit wiped from history you can request for it to be so. Jesanj (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls, it just encourages them. Smoke just craves the attention. He knows he has no case and is just being a pest. Drjem3 (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Mendelsohn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Peter Proctor".

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Peter Proctor". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 25 January 2013.

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Peter Proctor, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Peter Proctor, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

The request for formal mediation concerning Peter Proctor, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.