User talk:George Makepeace
Hi. I see you just created this infobox. But surely the element F is "Fluorine" - a fluoride is a salt of fluorine (just as a chloride is a salt of chlorine). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. We don't do infoboxes for ions. If you feel strongly about it, bring it up with WP:CHEMISTRY and WP:ELEMENTS. Apart from that, we do not make such drastic unilateral changes to pages. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that; I got Fluoride mixed up with Fluorine. I made the infobox last night and didn't realize my mistake until now - I'm glad someone fixed it quickly. Not a good start. --George Makepeace (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
It's okay. If you're interested in chemistry, why not pop by WT:CHEMISTRY & WT:CHEMICALS, where other wikichemists are? You'll probably encounter them editing chemistry articles too. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Nomination of Shoelace knot for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoelace knot until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
That sentence at Lens (optics) wasn't as redundant as it seemed. A collimated beam is one where the rays are parallel to each other; they are not necessarily parallel to the optical axis. Conversely, an uncollimated beam can propagate parallel to the axis, by which we mean that the average direction of the rays in the beam is parallel to the axis (even if the individual rays are diverging). I put back the reference to collimated, but left out the use of "parallel" as a synonym, to avoid confusion.--Srleffler (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Srleffler, the idea behind removing 'collimated or parallel' was that I thought this was already implied by the fact that the light is a beam and only added confusion to the text. However, I now realize that you have a valid point; a beam is not necessarily collimated and your edit has cleared up the ambiguity that I created without introducing confusion again. --George Makepeace (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Relationship anarchy for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relationship anarchy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)