User talk:Bcharles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Bcharles, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  Jkelly 03:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

See also sections[edit]

You'd never know it from our articles, but, in theory, "See also" sections aren't supposed to contain links already linked in the actual text. You can read more about this kind of thing at Wikipedia:Manual of style. Happy editing. Jkelly 03:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. It may well have been edited out of our guidelines since the last time I looked at them; always a danger around here. It still gets mentioned in discussions at Wikipedia:Peer review and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Obviously, it doesn't seem to be something most people are all that concerned about. Jkelly 20:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


I have removed my own mistakenly placed msg at this position. --Jerzyt 16:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Natural units[edit]

Thanks for your edit to Natural units. It's a good edit that should stick, I think. All I want to point out is that it is a substantive edit, not a minor edit. (You didn't change the whole article, but you did add content. No one should complain, but if there was some editor that, for some reason, did object to adding μ0 or ε0, the might not consider that a minor edit.) Minor edits are fixing spelling, grammer, formatting, etc. 72.92.135.195 (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Devine Mr. J - premiere poster 1974.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Devine Mr. J - premiere poster 1974.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed.

Orphaned non-free image File:The Thorn - VHS cover c.1984.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Thorn - VHS cover c.1984.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed.

Imagine (song)[edit]

Hello,

You removed the redundant mention of Bill Clinton singing the song, but I can't find the other mention of it. Where in the article is it? Hotcop2 (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see it. Hotcop2 (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Non-sovereign territories templates[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgNon-sovereign territories templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nightw 09:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Tibet[edit]

Hi Bcharles. I wanted to let you know that I reverted your change to Category:Tibet. You had removed the Category:Autonomous regions of the People's Republic of China and therefore made it an uncategorized category which should really be avoided. I'm guessing that you removed the existing categorization because you think it's incorrect from a political standpoint. I agree that Tibet should probably be differentiated from the Tibet Autonomous Region but for categorization purposes, it's helpful to somewhat blur the distinction. In any case, if you want to change the categorization structure, you should replace it with something more meaningful and possibly do so in collaboration with other editors since this is a controversial subject. Best, Pichpich (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mixed radix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tridecimal (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) 10:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

fixed. Bcharles (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

re: Centoctgesimal et al.[edit]

You nominated Centoctgesimal and a couple other redirects for speedy-deletion. Unfortunately, that had to be declined. CSD criterion R3 is restricted to redirects which are "newly created" - that is, in the last few minutes or hours. These are several years old and have to be debated at RfD. I've drafted a courtesy nomination for their deletion. I thought about copying in the edit summary you used when applying the CSD tag but didn't think that would do it justice. When you have a minute, please join the deletion debate. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Added comment. (Re)nominated Centaoctagesimal on Rfd. Bcharles (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png why merge base 32 into binary ? jjbernardiscool (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the beer mate. I have copied and replied to your question here. Bcharles (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Astatine[edit]

Please stop changing astatine. The Talkpage concluded different. At least a bitstrange you did not visit the talkpage before about this. -DePiep (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have copied and replied to your comment here. I have addressed the issue of At and Po here. Bcharles (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 15 for discussions on the status of Po and At (decided: Po = poor metal, At = metalloid). Double sharp (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

detailed response (Po, At, E117)[edit]

Because here I can talk about them at greater length and have it not be buried under masses of discussion. :-)

Polonium

See Sandbh's comment here. I'll summarize briefly. (Note: all these properties are listed in the literature, so I would not call it OR.)

The nonmetallic properties just fail to convince me. Polonium forms anionic polonides (but gold forms aurides and also has plenty of nonmetallic properties, such as its very high electronegativity of 2.54, despite being king of metals!) Its halides are easily hydrolyzed, but so are those of many of the poor metals. Its hydride is volatile and unstable, but the same is true of the hydrides of Tl, Pb, and Bi.

The intermediate (metalloidish?) properties are more convincing: coordination number 6; electronegativity of 2.0; ionisation energy of 818 kJ.

But what is most convincing are the metallic properties. It conducts electricity like a normal metal; both its allotropes have a metallic band structure; its enthalpy of fusion is average for closely packed metals; it is soluble in acids, forming Po2+ and displacing H; Po has many ionic salts; PoO2 is mostly basic and has the fluorite structure, typical of ionic metal oxides. And finally, it doesn't even have any nonmetallic allotropes known. Based on this, I cannot see any logical reason to call Po a metalloid. It is clearly a metal based on the vast majority of its properties.

Astatine

This is considerably more speculative given At's short half-life, but nevertheless we do have some info; see Metalloids#Astatine. Astatine's heat of vaporization is 54.39 kJ•mol−1, and elements with this value over 42 kJ•mol−1 are metallic in the liquid state. Like most metals, it precipitates even from strongly acidic solutions with the help of H2S, and is deposited on the cathode upon electrolysis. It exhibits typical heavy metal behaviour in forming pseudohalides, cationic astatine complexes, complex At(III) anions, and forms complexes with many organic solvents. And the At+ and AtO+ cations are stable in strongly acidic aqueous solution. It is even predicted to have a metallic appearance when solid! At also seems to be more similar to Po than with the halogens.

OTOH, it has a narrow liquid range like most nonmetals; it has a small band gap like most nonmetals; aqueous astatine chemistry is generally dominated by astatine anions; astatides, astates, and interhalogens where astatine is in the +1 state behave like the corresponding compounds of its lighter congener iodine.

This is a closer call, and hence I would deem it a metalloid. A difficulty with your version is that "Evidence for (or against) the existence of diatomic astatine (At2) is sparse and inconclusive." (Astatine#Physical) So I would be highly uncomfortable with labelling it specifically as a diatomic nonmetal on our periodic table templates! I only do that with E171 because I have no choice there (no experimental evidence) and it's predicted to behave like the halogens (presumably here referring to F, Cl, Br, and I); given its electron affinity of 3.0 eV, just below iodine's, it should form (171)2 molecules, whilst most definitely showing incipient metallic properties like I.

Element 117

(I am decidedly not going to call it "ununseptium". Who does in real science?)

First of all, while you are right that it is little understood and that there have been no chemical investigations of it as yet, we only label it as being predicted to be a metalloid. Here's what the most comprehensive source (Fricke 1971) states: "An interesting question is whether element E117 which is in the chemical group of the halogens would form the -1 anion. Cunningham predicted a electron affinity of 2.6 eV whereas the calculations of Waber, Cromer and Liberman calculated a value of only 1.8 eV. Cunningham describes the solid element E117 to have a semi-metallic appearance. It should form stable oxyions of the (III), (V), and (VII) states and stable interhalogen compounds. Because of the small electron affinity it might not exhibit the -1 oxidation state, which is even further suggested by the smaller value calculated by Waber et al. Certainly it will be a very soft base compared with flouride [sic] or chloride which have a electron affinity of 4 eV resp. 3 eV." Its liquid range should also be somewhat larger than astatine's.

So its −1 state would be unstable. If we take the higher EA value, it is defensibly a metalloid. If we take the lower EA value, it is probably a metal (that value is even less than polonium's!) But the stable interhalogen compounds and it being very weakly basic would classify it as a metalloid in my opinion, though I think the case could even be made for it being a metal.

It is important to note that the whole of the above three paragraphs on element 117 is composed of predictions. That is why we give it the muted "metalloid" fill colour. (Though it seems to be not muted enough for you; do you have any suggestions to improve it, if it was the reason why you seemed to me to think (and did you?) that we were colouring it as being certainly a metalloid?) Double sharp (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


Regarding Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council[edit]

Please visit the talk page Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council. ~ A n w a r a j Urdu: انوراج ‎ 18:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)