|Welcome to my talk page.
- 1 Activity-based proteomics
- 2 Cathode ray tube is a German invention
- 3 Sierra Jackson
- 4 Regarding the use of "van der Waals" or "Van der Waals" in text
- 5 Orphaned non-free image File:Methods in Organic Synthesis cover.jpg
- 6 Why spell out NMR?
- 7 Some baklava for you!
- 8 Disambiguation link notification for April 15
- 9 Move review for Carbon (fiber)
- 10 External links
- 11 Disambiguation link notification for May 2
Regarding your article "Activity-based proteomics" I would like to point out that the shown structure of the rhodamine derivative is incorrect. It is the substitution pattern at the chromophore. Kind regards, Ruben Bartholomäus (ETH Zürich) 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I haven't edited activity-based proteomics much beyond cleanup and most recently flagging it for being too technical and needing sections. The file File:Fp rhodamine.svg is by Ronhjones on WIkimedia Commons. --Kkmurray (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Cathode ray tube is a German invention
- You need to take your concerns to the article talk page. Please see WP:BRD and WP:CON. --Kkmurray (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the use of "van der Waals" or "Van der Waals" in text
It is indeed listed as "van der Waals" in "APPENDIX 9-1: recommended spelling list" of "The ACS Style Guide (2006)". However, their recommendation is wrong. The proper way to write Dutch surnames can be found on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_name#Surnames. This is a matter of writing names correctly.
The same applies to "Van 't Hoff" or "van 't Hoff".
Furthermore, the ACS recommended spelling list is inconsistent: van der Waals VandenHeuvel van’t Hoff–Le Bel (use en dash, see p 124) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- From van (Dutch): "Derivative terms like van der Waals radius (Dutch: vanderwaalsstraal) the "v" is not capitalised, unless it is the first word of the sentence." In any case, you need to take your proposed changes to the article talk pages or WikiProject Chemistry. --Kkmurray (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Methods in Organic Synthesis cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Methods in Organic Synthesis cover.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).
- Thanks. The image was orphaned when Methods in Organic Synthesis was merged into Synthetic Reaction Updates and is no longer needed. --Kkmurray (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Why spell out NMR?
Trying to figure out the motivation to move paramangetic NMR ... to Paramagnetic Nuclear Magnetic .... Might be something that others would want to have a say in?--Smokefoot (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Motivations are WP:ACRONYMTITLE and naming consistency within Category:Nuclear magnetic resonance. The consensus seems to be spelling out NMR in article titles. If that consensus isn't clear or there is a desire for acronym-only or system of mixed acronym/spelled out titles, then there should be a discussion. --Kkmurray (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well darn, the time to have that discussion was a few days before the action. Kind of a team sport here in the chem project, or was. When was the last time you discussed a nuclear magnetic resonance spectrum? --Smokefoot (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
|Thanks. I realized my mistakes soon after I made it, but couldn't fix it. I appreciate your work. Artheartsoul1 (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)|
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Inlet ionization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fragmentation (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.
Move review for Carbon (fiber)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Carbon (fiber). Because you participated in the move discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the move review. Srnec (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I see you have deleted multiple posts from March that I had posted from nanoHUB.org. I do not have any of the original messages sent, but some pages we posted to would be semiconductor, quantum mechanics, etc. What should we do differently to keep posts up?
- I only see one contribution from User:Toristevoo1223, but presumably you mean the many links to nanohub.org that are being added to article external links sections. You should be aware that Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files (WP:NOTREPOSITORY). See Wikipedia:External links: external links to a site that does not provide a unique resource are not appropriate. The content should be added to expand the article. --Kkmurray (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fluorescence in the life sciences, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Badan (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.